s-.sK^.**-**    -^:. 


N 


GA  TIVE 


NO.  91-80229-10 


MICROFILMED  1991 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  ~  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  ~  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


■.*■>?*■ .'; 


ft.*  •  •-    <  '-« 


LLE 


TITLE 


QU 


iMM 


STIO 


PI  ACE 


r'w*- 


18 


i  ■5#'  *31 


r 


) 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


COLUMBIA  UNIVEI^ITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  ti 


DI13LIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


Original  Material  as  Fihned  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


'^wrmtfmtf^^m 


■«^nm^*«[9ip 


i9  3G>EMac  Donne 

CUTiV\s.S. 

: London  >52,9. 


E 


Btas^ 


one 


aue.slion3    kHers    on    se- 


D. 


h<c 


P 


'    Ko.    I 'c  ofa  volume  ofpamplilcts. 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


FILM     SIZE: ^*^J01^__^^__  REDUCTION     RATIO: 

IMApE  PLACEMENT:    lA    @    IB    IIB 

DAfE     FILMED: ?l^_/_'_<^L__     INITIALS_j/^::2>^ 

RLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODBRIDGE.  CT  " 


H. 


VI  I*    Hi*!  ^  #> 


E 


Association  for  Information  and  Image  Management 

1 1 00  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1 1 00 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Sir 


Centimeter 

I         2         3 


ML 


lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 


rTTT7 


Inches 


iiiiiiiim 


TTT 


1 


5        6        7 

iliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii 


T^rT7 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


8         9        10       11        12       13       14 

iiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliii 


T  I   I 


UL      2.8 

12.5 

1^ 

1^   IIIP-2 

2.2 

1^ 

It   m    "" 

Hr  1^ 

2.0 

i& 

•- .. 

t^u.^i. 

1.8 

1.4 

1.6 

TTT 


15    mm 


ii 


•I 


MfiNUFfiCTURED   TO   fillM   STPNGfiRDS 
BY   APPLIED   IMPGE,     INC. 


N 


lO.    !   <- 


CatftoUr  iSint^titin 


LETTERS 


ON 


SECURITIES 


BY 


ENEAS  MACDONNELL,  ESQ., 


AGINT    OF    THE    CATHOLICS    OF    IRELAND. 


LONDON: 


JAMES  RIDGWAY,  PICCADILLY. 


/ 


*5i^ 


1829. 


ErjaPSJB^ 


INTRODUCTION. 


•(KVKLL    AND    SBBARMAN,    SALISBURT    tQVARK. 


The  following  Letters  were,  originally,  published 
before  the  announeement  of  His  Majesty's  gracious 
dispositions  towards  his  Catholic  subjects.  Their 
republication,  in  the  present  form,  is  not  intended 
to  intimate  any  distrust  in  the  professions  of  the 
Government,  but  is  considered  a  reasonable  pre- 
caution, rendered  adviseable  on  account  of  the  ab- 
sence of  any  declamtion  of  the  intentions  of  His 
Majesty's  advisers,  upon  the  subject  of  Securities. 

The  intense  anxiety,  notoriously  felt  and  declared 
by  the  Catholics  of  Ireland  regarding  this  subject, 
down  to  the  latest  moment,  must  constitute  tlie  justi- 
fication of  their  Agent,  w  hen  soliciting  the  attention 
of  Members  of  the  Legislature  to  the  facts  and 
observations  embodied  in  these  Letters. 

Should  such  obnoxious  measures  have,  unfor- 
tunately, obtained  any  favour  in  the  Cabinet,  I  am 
not  without  hope,  that  a  perusal  of  these  Letters 
may  induce  a  reconsideration  of  propositions,  tend- 
ino",  directlv,  to  neutralize  the  advantages  of  con- 
cession.  On  the  other  hand,  should  it,  hereafter, 
appear,  that  I  have  assumed  an  uncalled  for  labour, 

b2 


( 


^^fS^^^^-'TX^-^^^^W''"'^^' 


IV 


INTRODUCTION. 


no  person  will  exult  more  sincerely  or  more  grate- 
fully in  that  result,  or  welcome,  more  cordially  than 
myself,  the  acceptable  proof  of  the  genuine  liberality 
and  sound  policy  of  the  proposed  measures  of  relief. 

A  small  tract  is  annexed  to  these  Letters,  in  the 
expectation  that  it  may  be  permitted  to  aid  in  the 
removal  of  British  prejudices,  and  the  promotion  of 
British  sympathies  towards  my  country. 


Eneas  Macdonnell. 


London,  February  23d,  1829. 


LETTERS, 


LETTER  I. 


TO   THE 


EDITOR  OF  THE  MORNING  CHRONICLE. 

Sir, 

As  there  appears  to  exist  considerable  misappre- 
hension, in  the  public  mind,  respecting  the  objections  en- 
tertained, by  the  Catholicbody,tothe  arrangements  gene- 
rally designated  Securities,  1  should  feel  much  obliged  bv 
vour  permission  to  offer  some  observations  upon  the  sub- 
ject. In  the  first  place,  it  is  a  great  mistake  to  imagine, 
that  the  Catiiolic  hostility  to  those  measures  is  influenced, 
in  the  slightest  degree,  by  a  disposition  to  offend  any 
person  or  party  whatsoever,  or  to  raise  a  factious  oppo- 
sition to  them.  We  oppose  them,  because  we  consider 
them  unnecessary,  offensive,  and  mischievous.  Upon  these 
grounds  the  Catholics  of  Ireland  have  resisted  them,  and 
will  continue  to  resist  them.  They  feel  that  their  reli- 
gious and  political  interests  are  involved  in  this  resis- 
tance. They  have  declared  this  feeling,  year  after  year, 
for  twenty  years,  and  no  reasonable  man  will  insist,  that 
a  spirit  of  mere  faction  could  have  governed  so  large  a 
body,  for  so  long  a  period  of  time. 

I  am  aware  that  some  influential  advisers  have  recom- 
mended, that  the  Catholics  should  abstain  from  noticing 
the  subject,  until  distinct  propositions  are  brought  before 
them  ;  but  1  cannot  overlook  the  fact,  that  those  advisers 
generally  accompany  that  recommendation  with  two  ad- 
missions :  first,  that  they  expect  securities  will  be  pro- 
posed ;  and,  secondly,  that  they  approve  of  their  being 

b2 


accepted:  thus,  appearln^r  disposed  to  practise  an  unfair 
advantage  over  the  great  body  of  the  Catholics,  who  are 
opposed  to  such  measures. 

If  we  coidd  be  assured,  that  Government  would  consult 
with  us  before  anv  proposition  would  be  made  to  Parlia- 
ment, it  would  hie  reasonable  to  require  from  us  obedi- 
ence to  such  advice.     But  when  no  such  promise  is  held 
out ;  surelv,  our  onl v  rational  course  is  to  state  the  present 
feelings  of  the  Catholics  upon  the  principle,  generally, 
and  ifpon  those   measures  which   have   been  proposed 
hitherto.     Bv  doing  so,  we  inform  Government  of  our 
views;  and  if  thev  introduce  measures  hostile  to  them, 
they,  not  we,  will  be  the  aggressors;   whereas,  if  we  wait 
till' the  precise  measures  be  proposed,  and  then,  for  the 
first  time,  announce  our  opinions  adverse  to  them,  then 
the  Catholics  will  be  the  aggressors,  and  not  the  Go- 
vernment. Moreover,  it  would  be  obviously  bad  policy 
to  wait  until  the  Government  became  pledged  to  Parlia- 
ment (and  we  should  bear  in  mind  that  it  is  to  Parliament, 
and  not  to  us,  the  propositions  will  be  made),  and  then, 
to  have  the  ffreat  additional  force  of  such  a  pledge  op 

posed  to  us.  ,      , ,     1  1 

Common  honestyreqniresthat  we  should  always  speak 

candidly,  and  inform  theGovernment,  the  Parliament,  and 
the  people  of  our  feelings,  which  may  be  done  without 
offence  to  a  single  member  of  the  community,  or  preju- 
dice to  a  single  interest,  Protestant  or  Catiiolic.  I  tliink 
that  the  propositions  hitherto  made  may  be  set  down  in 
the  following  order: — 

1st.— Jurisdiction  or  control  of  the  Crown  over  the 
appointmont  of  Bishops,  and  other  Ecclesiastical  Autho- 
rities, in  the  Catholic  Church. 

•2d.— Control  of  the  Crown  over  the  intercourse  be- 
tween the  Catholics  and  the  Head  of  their  Church  m 

3d.— State  Provision  for  the  ]Maintenance  of  the  Ca- 
tholic ClerffV.  .       „  ,^,  .,,.        _, 

4,|,._l)isfranchisement  of  the  Forty  Shilling  Free- 
holders of  Ireland.  ■ ,      r       j..„:„„ 

The  two  first  have  been  under  consideration  during 
the  last  twenty  years  in  Ireland,  particularly  the  pro- 


position of  granting  to  the  Crown  an  influence  in  the 
Appointment  of  the  Catholic  Dignitaries.      It  is  by  far 
tlie  most  material  of  all;    and,  as  such,  shal    receive 
mv  first  consideration.      I  trust,  that  if  it  should  appear 
that  this  measure  is   opposed  bv  the  Spinti.al   Heads 
of  the  Catholic  Body  m  Ireland,  by  their  Clergy  and 
the   entire  communitv,  no  man  will  hesitate  to  doubt, 
but  anv  attempt  to  enforce  it  by  civil   P?"'«''.«'""' ^be 
direct;  unmixed  persecution.     And  if  we  find  the  Catho- 
lic opinions  in  Ireland  sustained  not^only  by  Catholic 
Authorities  in  England,  b:it  also  by  Protestants  of  dif- 
ferent parties,  friends  and  foes,  of  high  rank  and  estima- 
tion, it  will  not  be  too  much,  on  my  part,  to  insist,  that  their 
opposition  is  entitled  to  the  respect  and  deference  of  the 
Parliament,  and  the  Government 

On  the  Uth  Sept.  1808,  the  Irish  Catholic  Prelates 
assembled  in  Synod,  in  consequence  of  the  proposition 
made  to  Parliament,  of  admitting  the  Crown  to  exercise 
a  Veto  over  the  appointment  of  bishops,  and  they  unani- 
mously declared,  •'  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  introduce  any 
alteration  in  the  convenient  mode,  hitherto  observed,  m 
the  nomination  of  the  Irish  Roman  Catholic  Bishops, 
which  long  experience  has  proved  to  be  unexceptionable, 

wise,  and  salutary."  .it.-        ii     •     r 

The  letter  of  Lord  Grenville  to  Lord  Fingal!,  in  fa- 
vour of  arrangements  (now,  I  believe,  abandoned  by  the 
noble  writer),  having  been  published  on  the  25th  of  Ja- 
nuary, 1810,  again  brought  the  subject  under  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Catholic  Body  in  both  Islands,  and  the 
Irish  reiected  it  in  unmeasured  terms  of  condenrination. 

The  Prelates  assembled  in  Dublin  on  the  24th  I<ebru- 
ary,  and  agreed  upon  several  Resolutions,  and  an  "Ad- 
dress to  tl^e  Clergy  and  Laity  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Churches  in  Ireland."  They  "  confirmed  and  declared 
their  unaltered  adherence  to  the  Resolutions  unaniraous- 
Iv  entered  into,  at  their  last  meeting,  on  the  Uth  Sep- 
tember, 1808."  Those  faithful  pastors  observed  :- 
"  it  is  most  necessary  to  admonish  our  flocks,  lest  that 
Providence  which  has  carried  onward  that  paternal  faith, 
throu<^h  meritorious  constancy,  to  the  verge  of  freedom, 
henceforth  abandon  us,  in  the  last  moment  of  tempta- 


8 

tlon,  in  punishment  of  yleldini^  to  unbelief  and  contra- 
diction, now  that  we  are  relieved,  by  the  mercy  of  law, 
from  positive  sufferings." 

On  the  12th  November,  1812,  they  published  another 
Pastoral  Address,  in  which  they  declared,  they  would 
prefer  the  surrender  of  their  lives  to  the  surrender  of  the 
integrity  of  their  religion,  which  they  considered  to  be 
soug-ht  for  bv  the  proposed  measure. 

On  the  26th  May,  1813,  the  Catholic  Bishops  of  Ire- 
land  published,  in  their  Pastoral  Address  to  the  Clergy 
and  Laity  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Churches  in  Ireland, 
the  following  Resolutions,  in  reference  to  the  Relief  Bill 
of  that  year  : — 

"  I.  That,  having  seriously  examined  a  copy  of  the 
Bill  lately  brought  into  Parliament,  purportinij  to  pro- 
vide for  the  removal  of  the  civil  and  military  disqualifi- 
cations under  which  his  Majesty^s  Roman  Catholics  la- 
bour, we  feel  ourselves  bound  to  declare,  that  certain 
Ecclesiastical  Clauses  or  Securities,  therein  contained, 
are  utterly  incompatible  with  the  discipline  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  Church,  and  with  the  free  exercise  of  our 
religion. 

**  2.  That  we  cannot,  without  incurring  the  heavy 
guilt  of  schism,  accede  to  such  regulations;  nor  can  we 
dissemble  our  dismay  and  consternation  at  the  conse- 
quences which  such  regulations,  if  enforced,  must  ne- 
cessarily produce." 

Thev,  at  the  same  time,  passed  a  Resolution,  expres- 
sive of  their  continued  esteem,  confidence,  and  gratitude 
towards  Dr.  Milner;  and  the  Catholics  of  Ireland,  at  an 
Aggregate  Meeting  lield  in  Dublin,  on  the  15th  June 
following,  resolved,  "  That  the  warm  approbation  and 
gratitude  of  the  Catholics  of  Ireland  be  conveyed  to  the 
Right  Reverend  Dr.  Milner,  for  his  manly,  upright,  and 
conscientious  opposition  to  those  Ecclesiastical  regu- 
lations." Similar  Resolutions  of  hostility  to  the  Bill  of 
1813,  and  of  gratitude  to  Dr.  Milner  for  resisting  it, 
were  passed  at  all  the  Meetings  held  in  Ireland,  at  that 
period. 

The  late  Dr.  Poynter,  Vicar  Apostolic  of  the  London 
District,  having  made  some  commimication  to  Rome, 


I 


9 

received  a  reply  thereto,  from  Signor  Quarantotti,  dated 
10th  Februarv,'l8l4,  recommending  the  acceptance  of 
the  Bill  of  1813.     I  am  not  aware  that  Dr.  Poynter  ever 
published  his  own  letter,  but  the  answer  from  the  Roman 
Prelate  was  immediatelv  promulgated,  and  copies  trans- 
mitted to  the  Irish  Catholic  Prelates.     Upon  the  publi- 
cation of  this  document,  there  was  an  universal  outcry 
ag-ainst  it,  throughout  Ireland.     Meetings  were  held  by 
the  Clergy  in  the  different  Dioceses,  and  also  by  the 
Laity,  at  which  the  measure  was  most  loudly  denounced. 
The    Prelates   assembled  in  Maynooth,   on  the  2/th 
May,  and  passed  a  Resolution,  earnestly  intreating  Lord 
Donouo-hmore  and  Mr.  Grattan,  "  that  when  the  question 
of  Catholic  Emancipation  shall  be  discussed  in  Parlia- 
ment, thev  will  exert  their  powerful  talents  in  excluding 
from  the  Bill,  intended  for  our  relief,  those  clauses  (in  the 
Bill  of  1813)  which  we  have  already  deprecated,  as  se- 
verely penal  to  us,  and  highly  injurious  to  our  religion." 
The  Synod,  at  the  same  time,  deputed  two  Prelates  to 
proceed,  forthwith,  to  Rome,  to  convey  their  "unanimous 
and  well-known  sentiments,"  on  this  subject,  to  the  Chief 
Pastor.     The  Irish  Catholic  Laity  also  forwarded  a  re- 
monstrance  to  the  Pope,  against  this  Letter  and  injunc- 
tion of  Quarantotti.  . 

The  communications  from  Rome  not  having  been  sa- 
ti^factorv,  the  Prelates  again  assembled  in  Synod,  on  the 
23d  and' 24th  August,  1815,  the  Most  Reverend  Doctor 
Kellv,  Catholic  Archbishop  of  Tuam,  President;  and 
unanimously  adopted  the  following  Resolutions :— 

"  Resolved— That  it  is  our  decided  and  conscientious 
conviction,  that  anv  power  granted  to  the  Crown  of  Great 
Britain,ofinterfering,directlyorindirectly,intheappoint- 

ment  of  Bishops,  for  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  mjre- 
land,  must  essentially  injure,  and  may  eventually  subvert 
the  Roman  Catholic'religion  in  this  country. 

"  Resolved— That,  with  this  conviction  deeply  and  un- 
alterably impressed  on  our  minds,  we  should  consider 
ourselves  asbetraving  the  dearest  interests  of  that  portion 
of  the  Church  which  the  Holy  Ghost  has  confided  to  our 
care,  did  we  not  declare,  most  unequivocally,  that  we 
will,  at  all  times,  and  under  all  circumstances,  deprecate 


li 


10 

and  oppose,  in  every  canonical  and  constitutional  war, 
any  such  interference/' 

These  Resolutions  were  adopted  and  promulgated  by 
twentv-ei<^ht  Prelates,  with  their  signatures  affixed  there- 
unto/ Nor  did  thev  rest  there  ;  for  thev  added  two  other 
Resolutions,  well  worthy  of  being*  deliberately  consider- 
ed by  those  politicians  of  our  times,  who  imagine,  that 
they  can  settle  the  question  by  concordats  or  arrange- 
ments surreptitiously  obtained,  without  the  privity  of  the 
Irish  Prelates.  The  additional  Resolutions  were  the  fol- 
lowing : — 

"  Resolved — That  though  we  sincerely  venerate  the 
Supreme  Pontiff,  as  visible  Head  of  the  Church,  we  do 
not  conceive  that  our  apprehensions,  for  the  safety  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  in  Ireland,  can  or  ought  to  be 
removed  by  anv  determination  of  his  Holiness,  adopted, 
or  intended  to  be  adopted,  not  only  without  our  concur- 
rence, but  in  direct  opposition  to  our  repeated  Resolu- 
tions, and  the  very  energetic  Memorial  presented  on 
our  behalf,  and  so  ably  supported  by  our  Deputy,  the 
Most  Rev.  Dr.  Murray;  who,  in  that  quality,  was  more 
competent  to  inform  his  Holiness  of  the  real  state  and 
interests  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  Ireland,  than 
any  other  with  whom  he  is  said  to  have  consulted. 

'*  Resolved — That  a  declaration  of  these  our  senti- 
ments, respectful,  firm,  and  decided,  be  transmitted  to  the 
Holy  See,  which,  we  trust,  will  engage  his  Holiness  to 
feeland  acknowledge  the  justness  and  propriety  of  this 
our  determination." 

These  Resolutions  were  almost  immediately  communi- 
cated by  the  Prelates  to  the  Catholic  Board  then  sitting, 
and  the  people  at  large,  and  received  throughout  Ireland 
with  most  enthusiastic  delight,  which  was  declared  from 
meetings  of  the  Clergy  and  Laity,  convened  in  every 
quarter  of  the  island. 

At  the  same  time  that  the  Prelates  promulgated  those 
solemn  Resolutions,  they  also  presented  an  Address  to 
the  Prince  Regent,  in  which  they  say — "  We  cannot  but 
be  surprised  and  alarmed  that,  under  the  pretence  of 
securing  the  loyalty  of  our  body,  an  intention  has  been 
manifested  of  compelling  us,  in  direct  opposition  to  the 


I 


11 

dictates  of  our  consciences,  to  submit,  in  the  event  of 
Catholic  Emancipation,  to  the  interference,  of  persons  of 
a  different  religious  persuasion,  in  the  appomtment  of  the 
principal  Ministers  of  our  Church.  Such  a  vieasiire,  may 
it  please  your  Royal  Highness,  tvould  only  substitute  for 
one  mode  of  servitvde  another  still  more  (falling  and 
oppressive.  The  political  freedom  of  Irish  Roman  Ca- 
tholics might  be  enlarged;  but  their  religious  freedom, 
which  they  hold  incomparably  more  dear,  would  be  ma- 
terially diminished.  Under  such  a  restriction,  the  most 
extensive  concession  of  temporal  advantages  would  he  foU 
loived  hif  continual  heart-burnings  and  discontent.'' 

After  the  second  Deputation  had  returned  from  Rome, 
the  Prelates  again  assembled,  in  Kilkenny,  on  the  26th 
April,  1816,  and  resolved  to  petition  both  Houses  of 
Parliament,  "  most  earnestly  praying  them  to  resist  any 
application  which  may  be  made  to  the  Legislature  to 
errant  to  the  Crown,  or  the  servants  of  the  Crown  of 
breat  Britain,  any  leofal  power  of  interference  m  the  ap- 
pointment of  Roman  Catholic  Bishops,  in  Ireland."  They, 
at  the  same  time,  declared  that  the  proposed  arrange- 
ment is  full  of  danger  to  the  Church  of  which  they  are 

Pastors  " 

As  the  Resolutions  passed  by  the  Second  Order  of  the 
Clero-v  and  the  Laity,  in  support  of  the  Prelates,  and 
in  hostility  to  those  miscalled  securities,  would  occupy  a 
laro-e  space,  and  their  general  spirit  cannot  be  unknown 
to  any  Member  of  tbe  Legislature,  1  deem  it  unneces- 
sary to  insert  them,  or  observe  any  more  respecting  theni, 
further  than  to  aver  their  enthusiastic  coincidence  with 
the  sentiments  embodied  in  the  above  Resolutions. 

It  is  further  to  be  noted,  that  the  Prelates  evinced  their 
abhorrence  of  those  measures,  upon  every  occasion  that 
furnished  them,  individually,  with  an  opportunity  of 
makino-  known  their  feelings.  One  or  two  instances  will 
suffice?  Dr.  Moylan,  late  Catholic  Bishop  of  Cork,  uni- 
versally esteemed  for  great  virtue  and  personal  worth, 
addressed  a  letter  (in  reply)  to  Sir  John  Cox  Hippisley, 
dated  8th  Mav,  1811,  in  which  he  observed:— 

"  You  consider  the  proceedings  in  Dublin  (I  presume 
you  mean  the  Resolutions  entered  into  by  the  Roman 


12 

Catholic  Prelates  last  year)  as  calculated  to  do  much 
mischief  to  the  interests  of  our  Body.  They  may,  indeed, 
injure  us  in  the  opinion  of  those,  who,  like  Lord  Redes- 
dale,  wish  to  destroy  the  Catholic  Hierarchy  in  Ireland, 
and  in  the  opinion  of  those  who  wish  to  render  our 
bishops  mere  tools  and  slaves  to  the  caprice  of  every  man 
in  power,  and  of  every  Orange  Magistrate  in  the  kingdom; 
but  to  such  as  have  no  views  hostile  to  our  religious 
Establishment,  and  to  those  who  have  the  peace  and 
tranquillitv  of  our  country  at  heart,  the  conduct  of  the 
Prelates,  at  that  Meeting,  should  appear  most  expedient. 

"  Should  they  (the  Prelates),  for  any  worldly  conside- 
ration whatsoever,  be  so  forgetful  of  their  charge,  and 
so  insensible  to  the  support  of  their  religion  as  to  consent, 
even  if  thev  had  the  power — which  they  have  not,  without 
the  consent  of  the  Holy  See — to  grant  any  interference 
whatsoever,  to  the  Minister  of  the  day,  in  the  appointment 
of  Irish  Roman  Catholic  Bishops,  tliere  can  be  no  doubt 
but  Bishops,  thus  appointed,  would  lose  all  influence  over 
the  Catholic  people  of  this  kingdom ;  for  their  flocks 
would  no  lonofer  consider  them  the  shepherds,  appointed 
by  the  Catholic  Church,  to  lead  them  into  the  ways  of 
eternal  salvation;  but  mercenary  hirelings,  unworthy  of 
their  respect  or  confidence, 

"  It  is  reported,  but  I  can  give  no  credit  to  the  report, 
that  the  alterations,  intended  to  be  made  in  our  Church 
discipline  and  Government,  are  to  be  enforced  against 
us  by  Acts  of  Parliament.  If  so,  we  must  only  prepare 
for  a  new  persecution  on  account  of  our  religion  ;  and  I 
trust  that,  in  such  an  event,  our  Prelates  will  prove 
themselves  worthy  of  their  dignified  state,  by  cheerfully 
suffering  everv  sort  of  persecution,  as  their  predecessors 
have  done,  rather  than  consent  to  any  encroachment  on 
the  spiritual  independence  of  their  Hlerarchy--an  inde- 
pendence so  necessary  to  the  respect  and  existence  of 
their  religion." 

In  another  letter,  written  by  the  same  most  venerable 
Prelate  to  one  of  his  brethren,  attending  in  Rome  as  one 
of  the  Deputies  from  the  Irish  Episcopal  Body,  dated 
"Dec.  4,  1814,  he  uses  the  following  solemn  and  emphatic 
expressions: — 


13 

"  I  am  the  oldest  of  the  Catholic  Prelates  in  this  king- 
dom,  and  expect  soon  to  appear  before  the  awful  Tri- 
bunal of  the  Almighty  Judge— in  whose  sacred  presence 
I  solemnly  declare,  that  any  compromise  made,  or  con- 
trol whatsoever  given,  to  our  Protestant  Government 
or  Ministers,  in  the  appointment  or  nomination  of  the 
Catholic  Bishops  or  Clergy  of  this  kingdom,  or  any  m- 
terference  whatsoever,  or  influence  over  them,  in  the 
exercise  of  their  spiritual  functions,  will  eventually  lead 
to  the  subversion  of  our  venerable  Hierarchy,  and,  in 
consequence,  to  the  ruin  of  the  Catholic  religion,  in  this 
long-suffering  and  oppressed  Catholic  country." 

In  the  same  spirit  of  virtuous  zeal  and  anxiety,  the  pre- 
sent Catholic  Archbishop  of  Dublin,  Dr.  Murray,  a  Pre- 
late whose  great  abilities  and  acquirements  are  excelled 
only  by  his  Christian  amenity  and  benevolence,  availed 
himself  of  the  most  solemn  occasion,  to  raise  from  the  pul- 
pit his  warning  voice  to  some  mistaken  Catholics,  who  had, 
inconsiderately,  yielded  to  delusions  too  artfully  prac- 
tised upon  them.  When  preaching  a  sermon  upon  Good 
Friday,  in  the  year  1816,  and  having  arrived  at  that  part 
of  our  Divine  Redeemer's  passion  where  he  is  repre- 
sented as  bound  to  a  pillar,  the  Most  Reverend  Preacher 
said—"  To  this  bound  and  suffering  victim  I  would  now 
implore  the  attention  of  those  misguided  Catholics,  who 
seem  willing  to  impose  new  and  disgraceful  bonds,  not, 
indeed,  on  his  sacred  person,  but  on  his  mystical  body-^ 
that  is,  his  Church,  which  was  ever  more  dear  to  him  than 

even   his   life I   know  that   our  mistaken 

brethren  would  not  consent  to  yield  up  any  point  which 
they  deem  essential,  and  that  they  look  not  beyond  what 
they  consider  safe  and  honourable  conciliation.  But, 
unliappilv,  it  is  now  too  well  known  that  the  conciliation, 
which  is  expected,  is  such  as  would  imply  the  degrada- 
tion and  enslavement  of  the  sacred  Ministry.  And  what 
virtuous  Catholic  would  consent  to  purchase  the  chance  of 
temporal  advantages,  at  the  price  of  such  a  real  spiritual 
calamity  ?  Oh,  if  the  stroke  must  come,  let  it  come  from 
those  who  have  so  long  sought  the  extinction  of  our  reli- 
gion—but, in  the  name  of  God,  let  no  Catholic  press  for- 
ward to  share  in  the  inglorious  work— let  no  one  among^ 

c 


14 

us  be  found  to  say  of  his  Church,  as  the  treacherous  dis- 
ciple said  of  its  bivine  Founder,  'What  will  you  give 
me,  and  1  will  deliver  (it)  unto  you?'" 

Thus  we  find  this  proposition,  of  ^rantin^  to  the  British 
Crown,  or  rather  to  the  friends  of  the  Minister,  a  con- 
trol over  the  appointment  of  the  Irish  Catholic  Prelates, 
repeatedly  discussed,  and  as  often  deprecated  by  that 
body,  in  unison  with  their  Clergy,  and  the  Catholic  People 
of  Ireland.  This  opposition  cannot  be  fairly  set  down  as 
hasty  and  captious.  For  more  than  twenty  years  has  the 
subject  engaged  their  continued  attention,  and  their  hos- 
tility to  the  proposition  is  unaltered  and  unalterable.  If 
my  opinions  upon  this  point  be  doubted,  let  the  Catholic 
Prelates  of  Ireland  be  a^ain  appealed  to  by  the  Govern- 
ment, and  their  flocks  will  cheerfully  abide  the  result,  with 
undiminished  confidence  in  their  integrity.  I  am  as  cer- 
tain of  their  adherence  to  their  former  Resolutions,  as  I  am 

of  my  existence.  Would  not  it  then  be  most  idle  and  unjust 
to  make  such  an  inadmissible  scheme  the  basis  or  asso- 
ciate of  any  measure  of  emancipation?  It  will,  assuredly, 
be  met  and  treated  as  a  fresh  persecution  ;  and  if  there 
be  any  person  who  seeks  to  persuade  the  Government 
that  it  will  be  quietly  acceded  to,  after  a  little  time,  that 
man  practises  most  unworthy  deceit,  or  is  himself  much 
deceived.  Neither  let  it  be  imagined  that  the  Irish  Catho- 
lics are,  or  were,  the  only  opponents  to  the  proposition. 
It  is  well  known  that  the  late  Dr.  Milner,  an  illustrious 
English  Prelate,  was  a  most  zealous  opponent  to  it ;  others 
of  liis  order  were  equally  hostile,  and  it  may  be  truly  as- 
serted, that  the  great  body  of  the  British  Catholic  Clergy 
and  people  concurred  with  their  Irish  fellow-suft'erers. 

The  Right  Rev.  Dr.  Collingridge,  Vicar  Apostolic  of 
the  western  district,  in  his  pastoral  Address  to  the  Clergy 
and  Laity  of  his  district,  dated  April  13,  1817,  objects  to 
the  Legislature  "  being  influenced  by  precedents  drawn 
from  countries  that  are  strangers  to  the  liberties  of  the 
British  Constitution;''  and  declares,  that  he  "  could  not 
refrain  from  manifesting  his  deep  regret,  that  clauses  had 
been  introduced  into  the  draft  of  the  Bill,  that  was  pre- 
pared for  our  emancipation  in  1813,  to  which  it  was  impos- 
sible we  ever  could  give  our  approbation  or  consent.*' 


i 


15 

The  venerable  Prelate  thus  proceeds:  "As  official  guar- 
dian of  the  interests  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  the  western 
district,  we  have  felt  ourselves  called  upon  by  strict  duty 
thus  to  reiterate  to  you  our  former  instructions;  and, 
moreover,  in  the  present  circumstances,  to  seriously  warn 
vou  against  the  opinion,  that  you  may  conscientiously 
assent  to  regulations  respecting  the  concerns  of  your  reli- 
gion, on  the  mere  ground  that  similar  regulations  have 
occasionally  been  made  and  enforced  in  foreign  States. 
At  no  time,  my  beloved  brethren  and  children  in  Jesus 
Christ,  have  we  felt  ourselves  called  upon  to  attend  to  our 
high  charge,  of  guarding  inviolate  the  sacred  deposit  of 
reTigion,  with  more  vigilance  and  fidelity  than  at  present; 
whel-efore,  we  again  most  earnestly  exhort,  and  strictly 
charge  all  those  among  you  who  may  have  influence,  to 
employ  the  same  by  every  legal  and  peaceable  means,  to 
prevent  the  insertion  of  clauses,  in  any  eventual  Bill  for 
Catholic  Emancipation,  that  may  be  any  ways  repugnant 
to  the  present  discipline  of  the  Church,  and  most  parti- 
cularly such  as  may  tend  to  give,  in  any  degree,  the  power 
of  nomination  of  Catholic  Bishops  to  a  Prince  who  is  by 
law  the  head  of  a  different  religious  establishment,  or  to 
impede  that  free  intercourse  on  all  ecclesiastical  matters 
which  must  subsist  between  the  chief  Bishop  and  the 
Members  of  the  Catholic  Church ;  for  we  cannot  but  view 
and  deprecate  such  clauses  as  pregnant  with  consequences 
that  may  prove  highly  injurious  to  our  holy  religion." 

Neither  let  this  united' British  and  Irish  Catholic  oppo- 
sition to  the  measure  be  condemned  or  scoffed  at,  as  a 
mere  Sectarian  or  Popish  insubordination.  No  Catholics 
have  been  more  decided  in  their  resistance  to  it  than 
some  Protestants,  and  those,  too,  men  of  high  station  in 
the  political  world,  governed  by  their  regard  to  the 
peace  and  prosperity  of  the  State,  generally,  not  of  any 
particular  sect  alone. 

The  following  extracts  from  a  letter  of  the  late  Right 
Hon.  Edmund  Burke,  written,  1  believe,  in  1782,  and 
addressed  to  Lord  Kenmare,  deserve  most  respectful 
consideration.  They  prove  the  proposition  to  be  long 
agitated,  and  also  that  his  views  of  it  were  equally  deli- 
berate and  decided. 

c  2 


16 

The  Rio-ht  Honourable  Gentleman  observes,  "  Before 
1  had  written  thus  far,  1  heard  of  a  scheme  of  giving  to 
the  Castle  the  patronage  of  the  presiding  members  of 
the  Catholic  Clergy.     At  first  I  could  scarcely  credit  it ; 
for  I  believe  it  is  the  first  time  that  the  presentation  of 
other  people's  alms  has  been  desired  in  any  country.  .  . 
Never  tcere  the  members  of  one  religious  sect  Jit  to  ap~ 
point  the  pastors  to  another.     Those  who  have  no  regard 
for  their  welfare,  reputation,  or  internal  quiet,  will  not 
appoint  such  as  are  proper.  .  .  .  Allowing  the  present 
Castle  finds  itself  fit  to  administer  the  government  of  a 
Church  which  they  solemnly  forswear,  and  forswear  with 
verv  hard  words  and  many  evil  epithets,  and  that  as  often 
as  they  qualify  themselves  for  the  power  which  is  to  give 
this  very  patronage,  or  to  give  any  thin^  else  which  they 
desire;  yet  they  cannot  insure  themselves  that  a  man 
like  the  late  Lord  Chesterfield  will  not  succeed  to  them. 
This  man,  while  he  was  duping  the  credulity  of  Papists 
with  fine  words  in  private,  and  commending  their  good 
behaviour  during  a  rebellion  in  Great  Britain,  as  it  well 
deserved  to  be  commended  and  rewarded,  was  capable 
of  uro-ino-  penal  laws  against  them  in  a  speech  from  the 
Throne,  and  stimulating  with  provocatives  the  wearied 
and  half-exhausted  bigotry  of  the  then  Parliament  ot 
Ireland.  .  .  .  Suppose  an  Atheist,  playing  the  part  ot  a 
biffot,  should  be  in  power  again  in  that  country,  do  you 
believe  that  he  would  faithfully  and  religiously  admi- 
nister  the  trust  of  appointing  pastors  to  a  church,  which, 
wantino-  every  other  support,  stands  in  tenfold  need  ot 
ministel-s  who  will  be  dear  to  the  people  committed  to 
their  charge,  and  who  will  exercise  a  really  paternal 
authority  amongst  them?     But,  if  the  superior  power 
was  alwavs  in  a  disposition  to  dispense  conscientiously, 
and  like  an  upright  trustee  and  guardian  of  these  rights, 
which  he  holds  for  those  with  whom  he  is  at  variance, 
has  he  the  capacity  and  means  of  doing  it?    How  can  the 
Lord  Lieutenant  form  the  least  judgment  of  their  merits, 
so  as  to  discover  which  of  popish  priests  is  fit  to  be 
made  a  bishop  ?     It  cannot  be— the  idea  is  ridiculous ! 
He  will  hand  them  over  to  Lords  Lieutenants  of  Coun- 
ties Justices  of  the  Peace,  and  other  persons,  who,  for 


V 


m 


17 

the  purpose  of  vexing,  and  turning  to  derision  this  mise* 
rable  people,  will  pick  out  the  worst  and  most  obnoxious 
they  can  find  amongst  the  clergy,  to  set  over  the  rest. 
Whoever  is  complainant  against  his  brother  will  be  con- 
sidered as  persecuted ;  whoever  is  censured  by  his  su- 
perior will  be  looked  upon  as  oppressed;  whoever  is 
careless  in  his  opinions  and  loose  in  his  morals,  will  be 
called  a  liberal  man,  and  will  be  supposed  to  have 
incurred  hatred,  because  he  was  not  a  bigot.  Informers, 
tale-bearers,  perverse  and  obstinate  men,  flatterers,  who 
turn  their  back  upon  their  flock,  and  court  the  Pro- 
testant gentlemen  of  the  county,  will  be  the  objects  of 
preferment ;  and  then  I  run  no  risk  in  foretelling,  that 
whatever  order,  quiet,  and  morality  you  have  in  the  coun-^ 
try  will  be  lost.  A  Popish  Clergy,  who  are  not  re- 
strained by  the  most  austere  subordination,  will  become 
a  nuisance,  a  real  public  grievance,  of  the  heaviest  kind, 
in  any  country  that  entertains  them ;  and  instead  of  the 
great  benefit  which  Ireland  does,  and  has  long  derived 
from  them,  if  they  are  educated  without  any  idea  of  dis" 
cipline  and  obedience,  and  then  put  under  Bishops  who 
do  not  owe  their  station  to  their  good  opinion,  and  whom 
they  cannot  respect,  that  nation  will  see  disorders,  of 
which,  bad  as  things  are,  it  has  not  yet  an  idea,  I  do 
not  say  this,  as  thinking  the  leading  men  in  Ireland 
would  exercise  this  trust  worse  than  others;  not  at  all — 
no  man,  no  set  of  men  living,  are  fit  to  administer  the 
affairs,  or  regulate  the  interior  economy  of  a  church  to 
which  they  are  enemies. 

"  As  to  Government,  if  I  might  recommend  a  prudent 
caution  to  them,  it  would  be,  to  innovate  as  little  as 
possible  upon  speculation,  in  establishments,  from  which, 
as  they  stand,  they  experience  no  material  inconvenience 
to  the  repose  of  the  country — quieta  non  movere.*^ 

No  person  worthy  of  political  station  can  refuse  to 
o-ive  to  these  opinions  of  Mr.  Burke  the  most  respectful 
attention,  or  to  deny  to  them  an  influence  almost  govern- 
ing. They  manifestly  speak  the  language  of  common 
sense. 

In  more  recent  times,  other  eminent  Protestants  have 

c3 


18 

expressed  similar  opinions.     I  shall  confine  myself,  for 
the  present,  to  the  following  extracts  from  the  late  Lord 
Donoutrhmore's    Letter  to   the   Irish   Catholics,    dated 
March  t2th,  1817:—"  No  consideration,"  says  his  Lord- 
ship, "shall  ever  induce  me  to  purchase  for  you  the 
civil  privileges,  by  the  concession  of  a  veto  to  the  Minis- 
ters of  the  Crown. . .  .To  the  veto  I  have  an  unconquer- 
able repugnance,  as  entirely  uncalled  for,  and,  therefore 
an  unjustifiable  innovation  ;  and,  because  I  am  sure  that 
it  would  work  ill,  and  introduce  Court  intrigue  into  the 
sanctuary  of  that  Church  from  which  it  has  been  as  yet 
excluded.     I  would  resist  it  also  on  another  account ; 
because  I  am  fully  persuaded  that,  by  making  them  on 
whom  it  would  be'inflicted,  less  pure  and  uninfluenced 
in  the  selection  of  their  own  moral  and  religious  instruc- 
tors, it  would  not  be  calculated,  on  that  account,  to  im- 
prove them  much  in  the  relations  in  which  they  stand,  as 
subjects  to  the  Protestant  State. . . .  They  (the  Prelates) 
will  not  make  a  less  favourable  estimate,  as  I  hope  and 
trust,  of  the  zeal  of  their  advocate,  because  he  will  not 
condescend  to  entertain  any  unseemly  compromise  what- 
ever on  their   behalf,  nor"' submit  the   most   important 
situations  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  to  the  licenser 
of  the  Court,  whoever  he  may  happen  to  be,  in  this  Pro- 
vincial Government." 

Neither  was  this  veto  security  approved  by  the  most 
influential  opponents  of  the  Catholics.  Mr.  Peel,  if  J 
mistake  not,  has  more  than  once  declared  in  Parliament 
that  he  sets  no  value  on  it ;  and  Lord  Liverpool  was  still 
more  distinct,  in  his  disapprobation  of  that  course  of 
policy  which  would  connect  obnoxious  conditions  with 
any  measures  of  grace  or  favour,  that  Parliament  might 
be  pleased  to  extend  to  the  Catholics.  In  his  speech 
on  the  I7th  of  May,  1^19,  his  Lordship  declared  that 
«  he  always  thought  the  Catholics  right  in  objecting  to 
the  veto,  while  he  felt  that  the  enactment  of  such  a 
measure  would  afford  no  security  whatever  to  the  Pro- 

tpstants 

I  apprehend  that  the  most  zealous  of  our  opponents 
must  admit,  that  I  have  made  out  a  good  cause  of  justifi- 


I 


19 

cation  for  the  resistance  manifested  by  the  Irish  Catholics 
to  this  proposition ;  and  that  I  have  shewn  that  their 
resistance  cannot  be  fairly  set  down  as  factious  or  que- 
rulous.   I  shall  resume  the  subject  in  another  letter. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

Eneas  Macdoxnell. 


LETTER  II. 


TO   THE 


EDITOR  OF  THE  MORNING  CHRONICLE. 

Sir,  ^    ^ 

The   objection  entertained  by  the  Catholics  of  the 

United  Kingdom  to  the  admission  of  any  right  in  the 
Ministers  of  the  Crown  to  direct  or  control  the  appoint- 
ment of  their  Prelates  are  two-fold — religious  and  poli- 
tical.    They  feel  that,  as  Catholics,  such   an  authority 
could  not  be  endured  by  them,  or  conceded  to  men  whose 
policy  is  irreconcileable  with  a  due  regard  to  the  essen- 
tial qualifications  for  such  sacred  ofllices ;  and,  as  citizens 
—and,  above  all,  as  Irish  citizens— they  are  opposed  to 
measures  which  would  extend  the  influence  of  aristocratic 
power,  of  the  worst  order,  over  the  only  class  of  society 
in  their  country  that  has    hitherto  escaped  from  such 
contamination.     There  is  no   impartial  man   that   will  \  \ 
not  admit  that  the  people  of  Ireland   have  been  much  I  * 
more  afflicted  by  the  internal  Church  Establishment  of  I 
Protestantism,  than  by  the  external  Church  connexion  of  I 
Catholicism.    Yet,  under  the  pretence— for  it  is  no  more   ' 
than  pretence — of  securino^  the  State  against  evils  that 
may,  we   are   told,  possibly  arise  from   the   latter,  the 
minds  of  honest  men  are  diverted,  by  specious  theories, 
from  contemplating  the  existing  practical  injuries  in- 
flicted upon  that  people. 

This  is  a  common  practice  with  the  managers  of  Anglo- 
Irish  policy.  They  endeavour,  and  generally  with  too 
much  success,  to  place  the  injured  party  in  the  position 
of  defence,  and  to  subject  the  actual  sufferers  to  all  the 
taunts  and  reproaches  of  an  odious  inquisition,  as  if  they 


20 

were  the  votaries,  and  not  the  victims,  of  the  system  which 
generates  the  admittedly  indefensible  state  of  society  in 
Ireland.  This  position  will  be  found  to  be  most  abun- 
dantly, and  not  less  unhappily  illustrated,  in  the  exami- 
nations instituted  by  Parliamentary  Committees  into  the 
state  of  Ireland,  in  which  every  Catholic  witness,  without, 
I  believe,  one  solitary  exception,  is  made  a  defendant 
against  false  representations,  instead  of  a  complainant 
against  odious  and  extensive  injustice  and  oppression. 

In  the  same  spirit  the  outcry  is  raised,  at  the  present 
day,  atrainst  the  connexion  between  the  Catholic  sub- 
jects of'^our  Kin^  and  the  head  of  their  Church,  merely 
because  he  resides  out  of  this  realm ;  and  to  provide 
against  this  circumstance,  we  are  taunted  with  a  demand 
of  two  of  those  securities — namely,  the  right  of  interfe- 
rence in  our  ecclesiastical  appointments,  and  the  right  of 
inspecting  all  communications  between  the  See  of  Rome 
and  the  Irish  portion  of  the  Catholic  Church.  As  to  the 
latter,  it  is  quite  absurd  to  expect  that  such  an  inquisi- 
tion will  be  tolerated;  and  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten, 
that  the  See  of  Rome  has  already  declared,  by  the  letter 
of  Cardinal  Letta,  dated  Genoa,  26th  April,  1815,  that 
such  a  proposition  "  cannot  become  the  subject  even  of 
a  discussion." 

This  proposition  becomes  the  less  tolerable,  when  it  is 
known,  as  stated  in  that  letter,  that  one  of  the  primary 
instructions  from  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  to  the  Prelates, 
is,  that  in  their  communications  with  the  Holy  See  they 
never  shall  advert  to  any  thing  that  may  regard  the 
political  state  of  the  country.  One  must  suppose,  pur- 
suant to  this  doctrine,  that  if  Christ  had  postponed  his 
sacred  mission  to  the  present  day,  no  British  subject 
could  be  permitted  to  become  a  Christian,  because,  for- 
sooth, Judaea  is  not  situated  in  England  ! 

The  manner  in  which  this  subject  is  treated  by  our 
opponents,  is  generallv  most  indecent  and  discreditable  ; 
the  profession  of  alarm  is,  I  verily  believe,  in  ninety-nine 
cases  out  of  a  hundred,  sheer  affectation.  The  outcrv 
against  foreign  connexion  is  downright  hypocrisy  with 
many  of  them.  They  raise  no  complaint  against  foreign 
connexion  in  any  other  instance,  although  they  might, 


\' 


21 

with  at  least  equal  semblance  of  propriety,  object  to 
foreign  intercourse  of  every  kind,  as  to  the  spiritual  in- 
tercourse with  Rome.  As  well  may  thev  object  to  our 
commercial  dealings  with  the  subjects  of  Foreign  States, 
to  travellino-  in  foreign  countries,  to  loans  to  foreign 
Governments,  to  foreign  alliances,  to  holding  possessions 
in  foreign  countries,  as  the  Duke  of  Wellington  holds  m 
Spain  and  Portugal ;  or  to  the  acceptance  of  foreign 
civil  or  military  orders,  or  other  honourable  distinc- 
tions. . 

These  sensitive  guardians  of  our  internal  security  may, 
with  far  more  appearance  of  sincerity,  object  to  the 
divided  Government  of  a  British  King,  between  the 
United  Kingdom  and  the  Kingdom  of  Hanover,  than  to 
what  they  are  pleased,  most  incorrectly,  to  desio:nate 
the  divided  allegiance  of  that  King's  Catholic  subjects 
between  his  Majesty  and  the  Sovereign  Pontiff.  How 
must  their  patriotic  sensibilities  be  shocked  to  find  their 
Sovereign  a  Knight   of  no  less  than  fourteen   foreign 

orders!  viz. — • 

The  Elephant,  of  Denmark. 

Black  Eagle,  of  Prussia. 

William,  of  the  Netherlands.  ,  .     ^  „      . 

St.  Andrew,  St.  Anaa,  St.  Alexander  Newski,  of  Russia. 

Golden  Fleece,  of  Austria. 

Charles  HI.,  of  Spain. 

St.  Ferdinand  and  Merit,  of  Sicily.  ^  ^       j 

Christ,  St.  Bento  d'Avis,  St.  Jago,  Tower  and  Sword, 
of  Portugal. 

St.  Esprit,  of  France.  .    ,    t>    .    .     .      u-i 

Of  these  orders,  two  only. are  strictly  Protestant,  while 
not  less  than  eight  are  strictly  Popish  ! !  And  to  add  to 
the  awful  and  alarming  circumstances  of  this  multiplied 
foreio-n  and  Popish  connexion,  they  must  shudder  at  the 
contemplation  of  the  appalling  fact,  that  the  14th  Statute 
of  the  last  named  order  (St.  Esprit)  marks  the  character 
and  duties  of  the  Knight  in  the  following  words  :--«Nul 
ne  pourra  estre  fait  Commandeur,  et  recevoir  I  habit 
dudit  Ordre,  si  notoirement  il  ne  fait  profession  de  ladite 
Religion  Catholique,  Apostolique  et  Romaine,  et  n'ait 
proteste  vouloir  vivire  et  mourir  en  icelle  !  !  !" 


# 


22 

What  will  be  said  of  this  intimation  by  the  high  and 
mighty  Lords  of  Kenyon,  Newcastle,  Winchilsea,  Bexley, 
Chandos,  Exmouth,  and  Colchester,  who  have  been  gra- 
ciously pleased  to  take  the  Kin^,  the  Church, the  Constitu- 
tion, the  people  and  the  State  into  their  holy  keeping?  !  ! 

These  "  Seven  Champions  of  Christendom'*  now  lead 
the  cry  against  Pope  and  Popery,  and  affect  to  dread  an 
intercourse  with  the  Sovereign  Pontiff,  as  full  of  danger 
to  this  empire,  at  the  same  time  that  they  join  in  all  the 
rude  and  vulgar  reproaches  uttered  against  the  visible 
head  of  the  Catholic  Church. — Yet,  if  they  had  an  object 
to  obtain,  they  would  not  be  restrained  by  such  fears 
from  courting  the  same  power,  in  the  most  servile  terms. 
It  is  notorious  that  the  Lord  of  Colchester  was  one  of  the 
most  humble  adulators,  while  in  Rome  ;  and  the  Lord  of 
Exmouth,  notwithstanding  the  attachment  he  now  pro- 
fesses towards  the  Brunswickers  of  Exeter,  and  to  their 
No-Popery  doctrines,  by  his  letter  of  the  14th  of  last  No- 
vember, was,  "  once  upon  a  time,"  not  indifferent  to  the 
value  of  Popish  friendship,  or  even  to  the  efficacy  of  a 
Pope's  prayers.  Really,  these  Brunswickers,  like  certain 
other  folk,  should  have  good  memories.  Who  could 
imagine  that  the  Lord  of  Exmouth,  a  hater  of  Pope  and 
Popery,  could  ever  have  been  the  author  of  the  following 
letter  to  the  Pope !  !  Gentle  reader,  hear  the  Lord  of 
Exmouth : — 

Letter  of  Lord  Exmouth  to  Pope  Pius  VII,,  dated  ^l" 
giers,  the  Slst  oj'.^ugust  (lbl6),  on  board  the  Queen 
Charlotte : — 

"  Most  Holy  Father — 1  have  the  honour  of  inform- 
ing your  Holiness,  for  your  satisfaction,  of  the  success 
of  the  expedition  against  Algiers,  confided  to  my  com- 
mand. Christian  Slaverif  is  abolished  for  ever;  I  have, 
in  consequence,  the  satisfaction  of  sending  back  to  their 
families  173  slaves,  your  subjects.  I  hope  they  will  be 
an  agreeable  present  to  your  Holiness,  and  that  they 
will  give  me  a  claim  lo  the  efficacy  of  your  prayers, 

"  Exmouth." 

Can  any  thing  prove  more  clearly  the  utter  inconsis- 
tency of  this  party  than  such  a  document?  Here  we  be- 
hold a  man  denouncing  seven  or  eight  millions  of  his  fellow 


23 

subjects  as  unworthy  of  being  admitted  to  the  full  enjoy- 
ment of  civil  rights,  because  they  are  in  spiritual  com- 
munion with  one  to  whose  prayers  he,  himself,  endea- 
vours to  establish  a  claim! !  And  the  same  man  who 
exultingly  boasted  that  "  Christian  slavery  is  abolished 
for  ever,''  (and  that,  too,  by  himself,)  connects  himself 
with  a  party,  who  insist  that  Christian  slavery  is  essential 
to  the  maintenance  of  the  constitution ;  thai  seven  mil- 
lions of  the  king's  subjects  are  slaves,  and  should  be 
continued  in  bondage ;  that  the  Church  requires  it,  and 
the  law  commands  it ! ! !  He  may  allege  that  Ireland 
is  not  enslaved;  but  there  is  higher  authority  than  a 
Brunswicker  on  the  other  side  of  that  question.  The 
late  Right  Honourable  Edmund  Burke,  in  his  letter  to 
Dr.  Hussey  (in  the  year  1797),  distinctly  designates  Ire- 
land as  an  "  enslaved  country." 

It  is  not  surprising  that  Lord  Colchester  should  manifest 
an  Anti-Irish  spirit.  His  Lordship  has  the  peculiar  merit 
of  having  been  the  only  Chief  Secretary  for  Ireland  who 
had  a  mind  to  devise,  and  a  tongue  to  propose,  a  measure 
of  Irish  Government  too  strong  for  the  adoption  even  of  a 
British  Parliament.  His  Lordship  will  readily  recognize 
in  this  position  a  reference  to  his  proceeding  in  Parliament, 
on  the  10th  of  June,  1801,  when  his  superiors  in  the  Go- 
vernment disclaimed  any  connexion  with  his  scheme  of 
martial  law,  while  the  late  Mr.  Ponsonby  denounced  it 
as  "  a  monstrous  and  abominable  proposition,  unprece- 
dented not  only  in  the  worst  times  of  Ireland,  but  in  the 
worst  times  of  England ;  in  the  days  of  the  most  Gothic 
barbarism,  in  times  of  the  most  infuriated  bigotry  and 
political  rancour  that  ever  disgraced  the  annals  of  thii 
realm ;"  and  Mr.  (now  Earl)  Grey  added,  that  "  from 
the  principles  he  (Lord  Colchester)  manifested,  no  tran- 
quillity was  to  be  expected  in  any  country  committed  to 
his  direction."— (Plowden,  p.  99—100.) 

That  such  a  man  should  be  a  Brunswicker  is  not  strange. 
Nay,  it  is  meet  and  just  that  he  should  hold  high  station 
amongst  the  enemies  of  Irishmen;  but,  surely,  it  will  b© 
conceded,  on  all  hands,  that  he  is  inadmissible  as  a  judge 
or  a  witness,  when  the  interests  and  character  of  Catholic 
Ireland  are  put  upon  trial. 


24 

I  have  wandered  somewhat  from  my  intended  course  of 
observations,  but  the  digression  will  be  excused  by  those 
who  set  any  value  upon  character,  in  estimating  the  pre- 
tensions of  the  men  who  assume  to  be  specially  qualified 
for  the  direction  of  the  public  mind. 

Those  who  are  really  anxious  to  deal  fairly  with  the 
principles  and  conduct  of  their  Catholic  countrymen, 
will  not  submit  to  the  blind  guidance  of  the  "  Seven 
Champions,"  collectively  or  individually,  but  r.ither 
ground  their  judgment  upon  their  own  observations; 
and  if  they  find  that  the  spiritual  communion  subsisting 
between  Catholics  and  the  See  of  Rome  does  not  produce 
any  results  injurious  to  the  State,  they  will  decline  being 
connected  with  the  violent  men  who  would  put  the  fame 
and  interests  of  this  United  Empire  at  hazard,  rather  than 
do  an  act  of  justice,  or  denvto  their  own  factious  bigotry 
a  gross  and  barbarous  indulgence. 

As  1  may,  in  another  letter,  return  to  this  subject  of 
Ecclesiastical  Securities,  1  shall  not  detain  you  longer  at 
present,  than  to  point  vour  attention  to  the  oaths  taken  by 
Catholics,  in  which  they,  in  the  most  solemn  terms,  dis- 
avow the  odious  doctrines  and  practices  imputed  to  them ; 
and  it  is  worthv  of  observation,  that  upon  this  ])oint  of 
the  civil  power  or  influence  of  the  Pope  in  these  Kealms, 
the  Catholics  of  Ireland  have,  in  our  own  times,  furnished 
a  practical  proof  of  their  opinions  and  principles,  more 
deserving  of  the  consideration  of  any  honest  and  impar- 
tial Legislator  than  all  the  assertions  of  all  their  enemies 

put  together. 

I  allude  to  the  Address  and  Remonstrance  forwarded 
to  the  late  Pope  by  the  Catholics  of  Ireland,  and  dated 
80  late  as  September  16,  1815,  in  which  they  assert  their 
feelings  in  the  following  explicit  terms,  in  reference  to 
the  published  communication  from  Rome,  on  the  same 
subject  of  securities:—**  We  feel  that  we  should  be 
wanting  in  the  practice  of  that  candour,  which  it  is  our 
pride  to  profess,  were  we  not  further  to  inform  your  Ho- 
liness, that  we  have  ever  considered  our  claims  for  po- 
litical emancipation  to  be  founded  upon  principles  of 
civil  policy.  We  seek  to  obtain  from  our  Government 
nothing  more  than  the  restoration  of  temporal  rights;  and 


25 

must,  most  humbly,  but  most  firmly,  protest  against  the 
interference  of  your  Holiness,  or  any  other  foreign  Pre- 
late,  State,  or  Potentate  in  the  control  of  our  temporal 
conduct,  or  in  the  arrangement  of  our  political  concerns. 

"We,  therefore,  deem  it  unnecessary,  most  Holy  Father, 
to  state  to  your  Holiness  the  manifold  objections  of  a 
political  nature  which  we  feel  towards  the  proposed  mea- 
sure. We  have  confined  ourselves  in  this  Memorial  to 
the  recapitulation  of  objections  founded  upon  spiritual 
considerations ;  because,  as  on  the  one  hand,  we  refuse 
to  submit  our  religious  concerns  to  the  control  of  our 
Temporal  Chief,  so,  on  the  other  hand,  we  cannot  admit 
any  right  on  the  part  of  the  Holy  See  to  investigate  our 
political  principles,  or  to  direct  our  political  conduct ;  it 
being  our  earnest  desire  and  fixed  determination  to  con- 
form, at  all  times,  and  under  all  circumstances,  to  the 
injunctions  of  that  sacred  ordinance  which  teaches  us  to 
distinguish  between  spiritual  and  temporal  authority, 
"  giving  unto  Caesar  those  things  which  belong  to  Caesar, 
and  unto  God  those  things  which  belong  to  God." 

This  address  and  remonstrance  to  the  Pope  was  framed 
and  proposed  by  myself,  as  was  well  known  to  the  Catho- 
lics of  Ireland,  at  the  time  when  they  did  me  the  honour 
of  selecting  me  as  their  Agent.  The  opinions  1  then 
expressed  in  this  document  I  still  retain,  and  I  hold  them 
in  common  with  every  Catholic  in  Ireland.  They  are 
embodied  in  the  doctrines  delivered  by  the  Catholic 
priests  of  Ireland  to  their  flocks,  as  may  be  fairly  deduced 
from  the  following  extract  from  the  "  Summary  of  Catho- 
iic  Principles,"  contained  in  the  Catholic  prayer-book 
compiled  bv  the  Right  Rev.  Dr.  Coppinger,  the  present 
most  venerable  Catholic  Bishop  of  Cloyne,  in  which  he 
instructs  his  flock  in  the  following  word's  :— 

"Nor  do  Catholics,  asCatholics,  believe  that  the  Pope 
has  any  direct  or  indirect  authority  over  the  temporal 
power  and  jurisdiction  of  princes.  Hence,  if  the  Pope 
Jihould  pretend  to  absolve  or  dispense  with  his  Majesty^ 
subjects  from  their  allegiance,  on  account  of  heresy&r 
schism,  such  dispensation  would  be  vain  and  null,  and  all 
Catholic  subjects,  notwithstanding  such  dispensation  or 
absolution,  would  be  still  bound,  in  conscience,  to  defend 


'26 


their  king  and  countrif,  at  the  hazard  of  their  lives  and 
Jortunes,  (as  far  as  Protestants  would  be  bound)  even 
against  the  Pope  himself',  should  he  invade  the  nation.** 
Thus,  do  the  Catholics  of  Ireland  manifest  the  sincerity 
of  the  oaths  bv  which  they  are  bound  to  an  undivided  civil 
allegiance  to  their  Sovereign  ;  at  the  same  time  that  ther 
give  proof  of  their  determination  never,  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, or  for  any  political  advantages,  to  sanction 
or  submit  to  any  measure  of  arrangement  or  condition 
that  may  endanger  or  embarrass  their  spiritual  com- 
munion with  the  chief  pastor  of  their  Church ;  and 
by  this  honest  and  candid  deportment,  they  prove  the 
total  absence  of  any  necessity  for  those  securities  whicli 
their  enemies  demand  from  them. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

Eneas  Macdqnnell. 


LETTER  III, 


TO   THE 


EDITOR  OF  THE  MORNING  CHRONICLE. 

Sir, 
The  third  of  the  proposed  Securities  is  a  provision  for 
the  support  of  the  Catholic  Prelates  and  Clergy,  out  of 
the  public  revenue.     Our  opposition  to  this  measure  is 
manifold,  direct,  and  unalterable.     We  are  unwilling  to 
have  our  Clergy  become  the  stipendiaries  of  the  Crown, 
or  burthens  upon  the  people  of  Great  Britain.     We  have 
no  wish  that  they  should  be  placed  in  connexion  or  con- 
tact   with  State  Authorities;  and  this  caution  is  bv  no 
means  mitigated  by  the  reflection,  that  the  proposition 
originated  with  the  most  acrimonious  of  our  political  and 
religious  opponents.     For,  though  we  hold  their  opinions 
and  principles  in  very  humble  estimation,  yet  we  have  so 
much  respect  for  their  foresight  as  to  feel  assured,  that 
they  would  not  suggest  any  such  measure,  without  having 

previously  ascertained  it  to  be  injurious  to  our  interests. 

Upon  this  subject,  as  upon  every  other  Irish  subject,  the 


27 


great  excellence  and  object  of  English  instruction  ap- 
pears to  have  been  to  teach  the  people  to  be  ignorant.  1 
shall  endeavour  to  pursue  an  opposite  course;  and,  for 
that  purpose,  request  your  consideration  of  the  state  of 
the  Catholic  portion  of  the  population  in  the  United 
Kingdom.  In  a  small  pamphlet,  to  be  had  in  the  British 
Museum,  intitled  "A  Letter  from  Duke  Schomburgh's 
Camp,  giving  an  Account  of  the  Condition  of  the  English 
and  Irish  Army,  and  a  True  Account  of  all  the  Papists  in 
Ireland,  their  Number  and  Estates  in  Ireland,  &c. ;  from 
the  Camp  at  Dundalk,  November  4,  1689;"  published  in 
London  in  the  same  year — the  writer  states,  that  *'the 
whole  of  them  (Papists'),  men,  women,  and  children,  are 
but  one  million ;  of  which  40  or  50,000  in  arms.  There 
are  four  Titular  Archbishops,  23  Bishops,  and 2,328  Parish 

Priests." 

At  present,  notwithstanding  all  the  labours  of  Church 
and  Parliament  to  prevent  the  growth  of  Popery,  the 
Irish  Papists  exceed  six  times  that  amount;  and,  if  the 
number  of  their  Clergy  were  to  be  upheld  in  the  same 
proportion  as  in  that  age  of  persecution,  they  should,  of 
course,  amount  to  13,968 ;  or,  stating  them  in  round  num- 
bers, to  about  14,000.  But  estimating  the  necessary 
number  at  even  a  third  oi  the  proportion  that  existed,  ac- 
cording to  this  writer,  in  1689,  there  would  be  still  4,656, 
exclusive  of  Bishops  and  other  dignitaries,  to  be  sup- 
ported by  the  State,  should  this  proposition  be  adopted  by 
Parliament. 

Passing  from  Ireland  to  England,  we  find  the  number 
of  Papists  in  the  latter  country,  at  the  same  period,  set 
forth  in  the  official  Report  found  in  the  iron  chest  of  King^ 
William  111.,  and  published  by  Sir  John  Dalrymple  in  his 
Memoirs, 
The  numbers  are  thus  stated : — 

In  the  province  of  Canterbury         -        23,740 
Ditto        York  -        .  3,956 


Total  of  Papists  in  England     -        27,696 
We  are  informed,  by  the  same  official  report,  that  the 
total  number  of  Papists  then  in  England,  and  lit  to  bear 
arms,  was — 

D  2 


28 

In  the  province  of  Canterbury 
Ditto  York 


4,239 
701 


Total  -        -  4,940 

The  efforts  to  prevent  the  gro^vth  of  Popery  in  England, 
since  that  period,  do  not  appear  to  have   been   more 
successful  than  those  made  in  Ireland.     It  will  be  seen  m 
the  sequel  of  this  letter,  that  there  are  at  present  not  less 
than  456  Catholic  congregations  in   Great  Britain,  of 
which  there  are  393  in  England  alone;  and  I  can,  with 
perfect  safety,  aver,  that  one  of  those  congregations, 
namely,  the  district  of  Moorfields,  in  the  city  of  London, 
contains,  at  this  dav,  a  larger  number  of  Catholics  than 
existed  in  all  England  in  the  year  1689,  according  to  this 
official  Report.    The  Catholic  baptisms  in  that  district  of 
Moorfields,  for  the  vear  1828,  amounted  to  920  ;  and  as 
the  official  returns  of  the  year  1820  state  the  baptisms  of 
the  Metropolis  to  amount' to  30,422,  and  the  population 
to  1,469,692,  being  an  average  of  one  baptism  to  forty- 
eio-ht  of  the  population,  we  should,  of  course,  (according 
to^this  official  computation,  for  the  accuracy  of  which  I 
am  not  accountable,)  estimate  the  Catholic  congregation 
of  Moorfields  at  44,160;  being  16,464  more  Catholics 
than  all  England  contained  in  iiie  year  1689.     There  are 
two  other  Catholic  congregations  in  the  metropolis—- 
namely,  Virginia-street  and  St.  George's-fields— each  of 
which,'  according   to  this  average,  would  be  found  to 
contain  a  oreater  number  of  Catholics  than  the  amount 
for  all  England  in  1689.     The  Catholic  con^egations  of 
London  and  its  vicinity  amount  to  twenty-five,  and  the 
baptisms  for  the  last  year  were  about  4,500,  which,  multi- 
plied by  48,  would  produce  216,000,  as  the  total  amount 
of  the  Catholic  population  of  the  metropolis;  of  which 
nearly   200,000   are   either   natives  of  Ireland   or   the 
children  of  Irish  parents,  being  about  one-seventh  of  the 
population  of  the  metropolis. 

in  the  same  Official  Report  of  William  III.,  the  propor- 
tionate numbers  of  Conformists,  Non-conformists,  and 

Papists,  is  stated  thus: —  ^^  ,^  ,r»       i 

Proportion  of  Conformists  to  Papists  -  178  10-13  to  1 
Conformists  to  Non-conformists  .  -  22^  4-5  to  1 
Conformists  and  Non-conformists  to  Papists  186     2-3  to  1 


» '\ 


29 

1  apprehend  that  were  an  accurate  statenuent  of  the 
proportions  of  Churchmen,  Protestant  Dissenters,  and 
Catholics  of  the  United  Kingdom  to  be  made  out  now, 
the  numbers  of  these  respective  classes  would  prove  to  be 
nearly  the  same;  and  were  none  but  strict  followers 
of  the  Established  Church  ('confined  to  her  doctrines  and 
worship,)  to  be  counted  as  her  members,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  but  the  Catholics  would  prove  to  be  the  niost  nu- 
merous religious  community  of  the  United  Kingdom, 
although  treated  by  Parliament  as  the  lowest  of  all  in 
rank  or  influence. 

Coming  now  to  the  question  more  immediately  under 
consideration,  I  shall,  in  the  first  instance,  submit  a  sketch 
of  the  Catholic  Ecclesiastical  Establishments  of  the 
United  Kingdom ;  and  I  do  this  the  more  readily,  be- 
cause I  am  not  aware  that  Parliament,  or  the  British 
public,  has  a  correct  idea  of  the  extent  of  the  incumbrance 
upon  the  public  revenue  which  a  State  provision  for  the 
Catholic  Clergy  would,  necessarily,  create. 

At  present  the  Catholic  Hierarchy  of  Ireland  is  by  no 
means  sufficiently  supplied ;  the  benefices  (very  niany,  of 
necessity.  Unions,)  amounting  only  to  981,  being  an 
average  of  more  than  seven  thousand  souls  in  each,  and 
generally  scattered  over  large  tracts  of  country.  The 
following  will  be  found  to  be  a  correct  account  of  the 
number  of  benefices  in  the  Catholic  diocese  of  Ireland  : — 


Diocese. 


Number  of  Benefices. 


Ardagh 41 

Armagh    49 

Ardterl  and  Aghadoe 41 

Achonry    20 

Cloyne 54 

Clonfert    23 

Cork 34 

Clogher    34 

Cashel  and  Emly 47 

Derry    34 

Down  and  Connor 35 

Dromore 17 

Dublm 46 

Elphin 38 

Ferns    36 

Were  the  benefices  to  be 


Diocese,  Number  of  Benefices. 

Galway  (Wardenship) 13 

Killaloe     49 

Kilmore 44 

Killala 25 

Kildare  and  Leighlm   46 

Kilfenora  andKilmacdaugh. . . ,  15 

Limerick 40 

Meath    64 

Ossory 27 

Raphoe 24 

Tuam 48 

Waterford 37 


m 

increased  to  1,500,  the  con* 
3 


t^i 


30 


i 


31 


firreffations  would  still  average  4,600  souls  each ;  and 
when  I  estimate  the  necessary  number  of  parochial 
Clerffv  at  onlv  4,500  for  all  Ireland— namely,  1,500  parish 
priests  and  3,000  curates,  no  reasonable  man  can  retuse 
to  admit  the  moderation  of  my  allowance.  A  contrast 
with  the  Church  Establishments  of  Eng  and,  Ireland, 
Scotland,  or  France,  would  place  this  fact  beyond  doubt. 
The  Episcopal  Catholic  Establishment  of  Ireland  is,  at 
present,  as  follows  :— 

Archbishops ^ 

Bishops '^'i 

Warden ^ 

Coadjutor  Bishops ^ 

Total 32 

To  these  must  be  added  twenty-six  Deans,  and  an 
equal  number  of  Archdeacons;  so  that  the  number  and 
stations  of  Catholic  Ecclesiastics  to  be  sustained  by  a 
State  provision  in  Ireland,  would  be— 

Archbishops ^ 

Bishops ^1. 

Warden    ^ 

Deans ^^ 

Archdeacons    J^ 

Parish  Priests    1.^00 

Curates     * o,uuu 

Exclusive  of  occasional  Coadjutor— Bishops,  &c. 

1  come  now  to  the  British  Catholic  Ecclesiastical  Esta- 
blishment, as  it  should,  of  course,  be  included  in  any 
Legislative  arrangement  for  a  state  provision.  I  propose 
to  furnish  a  list  of  the  Catholic  Congregations  of  Great 
Britain,  setting  forth  those  of  England  and  Scotland  in 
the  alphabetical  order  of  their  respective  counties,  viz.— 

ENGLAND. 


1 
6 
1 
1 


Catholic  Congregation?. 

Bedford 

Berks    

Bucks   

Cambridge   

Cheshire    ^ 

Cornwall 2 

Cumberland 4  Herts     ... 

Derbyshire 8  Kent..... 

Devonshire  9  Lancashire 


Catholic  Congregations. 

Dorsetshire    

Durham    

Essec    

Gloucestershire 

Hants    

Herefordshire    


7 

13 

6 

5 

12 

1 

6 

87 


Catholic  Congregations. 

Leicestershire    7 

Lincolnshire 1 1 

Monmouthshire    ^ 

Norfolk 8 

Notts 3 

N.Hants   3 

Northumberland 20 

Oxon    8 

Shropshire    7 

Somersetshire   8 

Staffordshire     22 

WALES 


Catholic  Cangregations. 

Suffolk 5 

Surrey  3 

Sussex  6 

Warwickshire  12 

Westmoreland 2 

Wilts    3 

Worcestershire 8 

Yorkshire 47 

London  and  Vicinity  ....  25 


Total  in  England 393 


SCOTLAND. 


Aberdeen    8 

Angusshire 1 

Argyleshire 1 

Ayrshire 4 

Banffshire 9 

Buteshire 1 

Dumbartonshire 1 

Dumfriesshire 1 

Edinburgshire  or  Mid-Lothian  . .  2 

Elgin  or  Murrayshire 1 


Kircudbrightshire 2 

Lanarkshire 4 

Peeblesshire 1 

Renfrewshire    2 


Ross-shire. . . 
Wigtonshire. 


1 
1 


Total  in  Scotland 
Total  in  Great  Britain 


57 


456 


Inverness-shire    17 

In  Great  Britain,  the  Catholic  mission  is  presided  over 
by  seven  Bishops,  who  are  at  present  assisted  by  four- 
coadjutor  Bishops— I  take  it  for  granted,  that  there  are 
in  eacli  of  the  seven  episcopal  districts  persons  discharg- 
ing the  duties  of  Dean  and  Archdeacon ;  and  I  do  not 
think  it  an  unreasonable  estimate,  or  average,  to  allow 
two  Clergymen — namely,  one  principal  Pastor,  and  one 
assistant  Curate,  for  each  of  the  456  congregations. 

Coming  now  to  the  annual  provision  for  each  of  the 
several  ranks  of  Catholic  Ecclesiastics,  1  think  the  pro- 
posed scale  of  1825  would  average- 
To  each  Archbishop £1,500 

Bishop  1»000 

Dean 500 

Archdeacon 400 

Parish  Priest  in  Ireland,  or  Principal 

Pastor  in  Great  Britain 250 

Curate,  or  Assistant 75 

According  to  this  scale,  the  total  amount  of  the  annual 
provision  for  the  Catholic  Prelates  and  Clergy  of  the 
United  Kinsrdom  would  be  as  follows ;— - 


32 


IRELAND.  Annual  Charge.       Total. 

4  Archbishops,  at  1.5001.  each £6,000 

22  Bishops,  at  1,0001.  each 22,000 

Warden  ol  Galwav    1»^00 

27  Deans,  at  5001.  each   13,500 

27  Archdeacons,  at  4001.  each 10,800 

1,500  Parish  Priests,  at  2501.  each  375,000 

3,000  Curates,  at  751.  each  225,000 

Total  annual  charge  for  Ireland £653,300 

GREAT  BRITAIN. 

7  Bishops,  at  1,0001.  each 7,000 

7  Deans,  at  5001.  each 3,500 

7  Archdeacons  at  4001.  each    2,800 

456  Principal  Pastors,  at  2501.  each 1 14,000 

456  Assistant  Curates,  at  751.  each 34,200 

Total  annual  charge  for  Great  Britain 161,500 

Grand  total £81 4,800 

In  addition  to  this  annual  charge  of  814,8001.,  there 
should  also  be  provided  means  of  support  for  aged  and 
infirm  Clergymen,  who  may  be  rendered  unable  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  their  respective  offices.  There  would 
also  be,  of  necessity,  other  considerable  expenses  con- 
nected with  this  measure,  as  new  officers  and  offices, 
commissioners,  &c.  &c.  which  would  soon  bring  the  an- 
nual charge  up  to  900,0001. 

The  first  observation  to  be  made  upon  this  proposition 
of  increasing  taxation  to  so  lar^e  an  annual  amount  is, 
that  it  not  only  is  not  desired,  but  is  most  earnestly  re- 
sisted by  the  parties  who  would  be  ostensibly  the  most 
interested  in  its  establishment — the  Catholic  Hierarchy 
and  people  of  Ireland.  The  former  have  repeatedly  ex- 
pressed their  wishes  to  receive  their  supnort  from  the 
flocks  whom  thev  serve;  and  the  people  have  been 
equally  loud  in  tlie  expression  of  their  desire  to  be  the 
sole  supporters  of  the  pastors  whom  they  revere ;  and, 
perhaps,  1  may  be  allowed  to  add,  that  the  fact  of  the 
aoent  of  the  Catholics  of  Ireland  being  the  writer  of  this 
letter,  is,  of  itself,  some  evidence  of  the  sincerity  of  our 
opposition  to  this  measure. 


I 


3S 

The  following  Resolutions  of  the  Irish  Bishops  indi- 
cate their  feelings  very  distinctly  :— 
Resolution  of  the  Irish  Catholic  Bishops,  assembled  in 

Synod,  2ilh  July,  1810:— 

«   Resolved,    That  we   neither  seek  nor  desire   any 
other  earthly  consideration  for  our  spiritual  ministry  to 
our  respective  flocks,  save  what  they  may,  from  a  sense 
of  religion  and  duty,  voluntarily  afford  us. 
Resolution  of  the  Irish  Catholic  Bishops,  assembled  in 

Synod,  2bth  January,  1826:— 

"  Havinff  taken  into  consideration  the  project  of  a 
provision  to  be  made  by  law  for  the  support  of  the 
Prelates  and  Clergy  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  m 
Ireland,  Resolved,  That  no  such  legal  provision  for  our 
support,  and  that  of  our  Clergy,  will  be  acceded  to  by  us, 
until  the  Catholics  of  Ireland'  shall  have  been  emanci- 
pated ;  and  that  at  no  period  can  we  accept  any  such 
leffal  provision,  unless  an  acceptance  of  it  be  Imind  by 
us  consistent  with  the  independence  of  our  Church, 
and  the  integrity  of  its  discipline,  as  well  as  with  the 
cordial  union  and  affectionate  attachment  which  has 
hitherto  subsisted  between  the  Catholic  Clergy  and  that 
faithful  people,  from  whose  generous  contributions  we 
and  our  predecessors  have,  for  centuries,  derived  our 

^"1?  cannot  affect  to  be  ignorant  that  some  expressions  of 
a  distinguished   Irish  Prelate  (Dr.  Doyle)  have   been 
referred  to  as  evidence  of  a  contrary  disposition ;  but,  m 
justice  to  him  and  to  his  opinions,  I  be^  leave  to  pomt  to 
liis  speech  at  the  Preliminary  Meeting  preceding  the 
Leinster   Provincial    Meeting,    14th   December,  18^5: 
— "  My  opinion  was  this,  that  if  the  Prelates  approved 
of  a  provision,   emanating  from  the  Treasury— if  the 
Ministers  of  Christ  were  to  be  paid  by  the  Ministers  ot 
State  for  dispensing  the  mjsteries  of  God— in  that  case, 
that  I  would  not  create  dissension  amongst  them  ;  but 
that  sooner  than  my  hand  should  be  soiled:  by  it,  1  would 
lay  down  my  office  at  the  feet  of  him  who  conferred  it; 
for  that  if  my  hand  were  to  be  stained  with  Government 
money,  it  should  never  grasp  a  Crozier,  or  a  Mitre  ever 
afterwards  be  fitted  to  my  brow." 


3^ 

1  am  not  aware  that  the  Catliolic  Prelates,  Clergy,  or 
Laity  of  Great  Britain,  have  published  any  official  de- 
claration of  their  feelings  upon  the  subject ;  but  my 
opinion  is,  that  there  would  be  no  difference  between 
them  and  their  Irish  brethren. 

I  am,  Sir,  &c. 

Eneas  Macdonnell. 


LETTER  IV. 


TO  THE 


EDITOR  OF  THE  MORNING  CHRONICLE, 

Sir,  • 

The  fourth  proposition,  in  the  name  of  a  Security,  sug*- 
^ested  to  Parliament,  is  the  disfranchisement  of  the  forty- 
shilling  freeholders  of  Ireland  ;  and  this  measure,  we  are 
told,  is  grounded  upon  the  abuses  which  are  stated  to 
have  been  latterly  manifested  in  the  exercise  of  the  elec- 
tive franchise.  These  alleged  abuses  consist  in  the  diso- 
bedience of  the  freeholders  to  their  landlords,  and  sub- 
mission to  the  influence  of  their  Priests.  It  is  not  stated 
that  in  any  instance  they  voted,  or  were  advised  by  their 
Clergy  to  vote,  in  a  manner  injurious  to  their  political 
interests,  or  prejudicial  to  their  political  fame ;  and  it  is 
notorious,  that  in  most  instances  the  landlord,  who  sought 
to  exercise  full  dominion  over  their  franchises,  was  go- 
verned solely  by  his  own  feelings,  without  the  slightest 
regard  to  those  of  the  freeholders. 

In  after  times  it  will  be  subject  of  reproach  to  our  age 
that  such  pretensions  should  have  been,  for  a  moment, 
tolerated,  much  less  sanctioned  by  any  portion  of  the 
Legislature.  The  whole  attempt  indicates  such  a  spirit 
of  oase  and  barefaced  jobbing,  such  downright  corrup- 
tion, that  one  feels  shame  in  oeing  obliged  to  contend 
aofainst  it.  So  long"  as  the  freeholder  was  seduced  bv 
selfish  considerations,  or  compelled  by  threats  to  lay  his 
franchise  at  the  feet  of  his  landlord,  without  any  regard 
to  his  own  honour,  interests,  or  conscience,  there  was  no 
complaint  against  him  ;  but  the  moment  he  assumed  the 
right  of  voting  or  thinking  for  himself,  and  presumed  to 


f 


35 

exercise  his  franchise,  for  the  purposes  of  which,  and  for 
which  alone,  it  was  granted  to  him  by  the  Constitution, 
then  he  is  set  down  as  an  offender  against  Law  and 
Gospel,  and  denounced  as  unworthy  to  enjov  the  right, 
fop  no  other  reason  than  because  he  had  the  courage  * 
and  the  honesty,  perhaps  once  in  his  life,  to  exercise  it 
conscientiously. 

The  general  objections  to  disfranchisement  of  con- 
stituents, by  their  own  representatives,  are  so  obvious, 
and    have   been   so    often    and   so    ably   urged,  that  I 
do   not   think  it   necessary  to  repeat   tnem ;   but    hav- 
ing always  thought  that  the  Catholic  fortv-shilling  free- 
holder of  Ireland   possessed   peculiar  claims   to  legis- 
lative protection,  some  of  which  have  not  been  suffi- 
ciently,  if  at   all,    noticed  in    the    discussions   on   this 
subject,  I  shall  now  endeavour  to  supply,  in  part  at  least, 
the  omission.     All  the  objections  now  made  to  the  exer- 
cise of  the  elective  franchise  by  forty-shilling  freeholders 
in  Ireland,  were  made  to  its  restoration  in  1793.     They 
were  fully  discussed  in  the   Irish  Houses  of  Lords  and 
Commons,  and  ultimately  and  deliberately  overruled  in 
each  House,  as  a  reference  to  the  debates,  and  particularly 
to  the  speech  of  the  present  Lord  Ross,  will  establish.    The 
Act  restoring  the  right  having  been  thus  passed  into  a 
law,  after  such  full  consideration,  cannot  now  be  repeal- 
ed without  great  injustice  and  bad  faith,  nor  can  it  be 
abolished  under  the  pretence  of  its  repeal  being  made 
necessary  by  unforeseen  circumstances.     If  it  should  ap- 
pear that  the  attainment  and  enjoyment  of  this  franchise, 
as  well  for  the  poor  as  for  the  rich,  was  the  declared 
primary  object  of  the  Catholic  Body  in  1793,  it  must  be 
admitted,  that  the  withdrawal  of  it  at  the  present  day 
would  be  an  atrocious  abandonment  of  the  spirit  of  con- 
cession and  relief  that  was  avowed  in  that  year ;  yet,  that 
it  was  then  the  primary  object  of  Catholic  anxiety,  can- 
not now  be  questioned  by  any  person  informed  of  the 
history  of  that  time. 

The  Irish  Catholic  Association,  or  committee  of  that 
day,  distinctly  and  unequivocally  put  it  forth  as  the 
dearest  object  of  its  pursuit,  and  all  the  Anti-Catholic 
Grand  Juries,  Corporations,  &c.  were  equally  distinct 


36 


and  unequivocal  in  making  its  concession  the  first  object 
of  their  resistance ;  so  that  it  had  been  fully  considered, 
as  well  out  of  Parliament  as  in  Parliament,  before  it  was 

determined  upon.  «  ,    ,      ,  ^  j  . 

The  Petition  of  the  Catholics  of  Ireland,  presented  to 
his  late  Majesty,  January  2,  1792,   states—'*  There  re- 
mains one  incapacity  which  vour  loyal  subjects,  the  Ca- 
tholics of  Ireland,  feel  with  most  poignant  anguish  oi 
mind,  as  being  the  badge  of  unmerited  disgrace  and  ig^ 
nominv,  and  the  cause  and  bitter  aggravation  of  all  our 
other  Calamities.     We  are  deprived  of  the  elective  fran- 
chise, to  the  manifest  perversion  of  the  spirit  of  the  Con- 
stitution ;  and  we  most  humbly  implore  your  Majesty  to 
believe,  that  this  our  prime  and  heavy  grievance  is  not 
an  evil  merely  speculative,  but  is  attended  with  great 
distress  to  allranks,  and  in  many  instances  with  the  total 
ruin  and  destruction  of  the  lower  orders  of  your  Majes- 
ty's faithful  and  loval  subjects,  the  Catholics  of  Ireland. 
Thus  was  the  elective  franchise  sought  for,  m  a  particu- 
lar manner,  for  the  enjoyment  of  the  lower  orders,  and 
for  their  advantage,  though  it  is  now  not  unfrequently 
insisted  upon,  by  ignorant  men,  that  it  never  was  in- 
tended to  extend  the  franchise  to  that  class  of  the  people. 
In  the  same  spirit,  the  same  Catholic  Committee  of  1792, 
in  all  its  circulars,  declared  its  first  object  to  be,  "  to  pro- 
cure  for  the  Catholics  the  elective  franchise  ;'    and  par- 
ticularly  in  their  circular  *'  on  the  manner  of  conducting 
the  election  of  delegates,'^  to  the  Committee,  they  address 
themselves  emphatically  to  the  Catholic  Clergy,  in  the  foU 
lowing  words:— "  The  Clero:v,being  the  natural  guardians 
of  moralitv,  will  undoubtediv  consent  to  co-operate  with 
the  Laitv,'  when   they  consider  that  the  restoration  o{ 
the  elective  franchise  to  the  Catholic  community  will 
tend  to  prevent  those  perjuries  which  are  so  common 
at,  and  which  disgrace  the  return  of  electioneering  con- 
tests."    In  the  same  manner,  the  Committee,  in  its  au- 
thentic and  published  "  Vindication  of  the  Conduct  and 
Principlesof  the  Catholics  of  Ireland,"  observes,  'Mhere 
remains  one  disqualification  yet  unmentioned,   which 
the  Catholics  of  Ireland  feel  more  seriously   than  ali 
others-^ih^y  are  excluded  from  the  elective  franchise. 


37 


no-uage  of  Mr.  Secretary  Hobart,  on  the  4'h  of 
\\1^^,  when  introducing  the  Bill  of  Catholic 


The  lani 
Februarv. 

Relief  in  the  Irish  PairKiment,  places  beyond  all  doubt 
the  deliberate  intention  of  the  framcrs  of  the  law  to  ex- 
tend the  elective  franchise  to  every  order  of  the  com- 
munity.    "  My  first  object  (said  he),  and  ichat  the  Ro^ 
man  Catholics  seem  to  have  at  heart,  is  the  right  of  voting 
at  elections  for  Members  of  Parliament ;  this  I  wished  to 
have  restored  to  them.     Many  opinions  have  been  main- 
tained with  respect  to  the  limitations  under  which  this 
right   should   be    extended  to    Roman   Catholics ;    but 
under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  I  would  recom- 
mend the  nnlhnked  extension  of  this  franchise.     By  this 
the  main  object  would  be  better  answered,  and  I  think  it 
more  becoming  the  House,  either  not  to  grant  at  all, 
or  to  (jrant  liberally,     1  hope  you  will  concur  in  gv^nU 
mgWwithout  limitation;  forif  there  w  ere  ajiy  reserve 
or  imiitation,  there  would^stnT remain  a  sore  place  In  " 
thcRoman  Catholic  mind." 

This  clause  in  the  relief  bill  was  also  fully  considered  in 
ihoi  Irish  House  of  Lords,  on  the  15th  ot'  March,  1793. 
Lord  Enniskillen  '*  gave  it  his  decided  negative,  and 
moved  that  the  clause  be  expunged." 

"  The  Lord  Chancellor,  Clare,  spoke  in  the  defence  and 
support  of  the  clause,  and  opposed,  of  course,  the  motion 
for  its  expunction.  His  Lordship  agreed,  that  this  clause 
contained  the  very  principle  aid  essence  cf  the  bill,  and 
that  to  reject  it  would  be  to  defeat  every  object  both  of 
the  Catholics  and  the  legislature," 

"  Lord  Farnham  also  supported  the  clause  on  a  similar 
ground." 

"  The  Archbishop  of  Cashell  said,  he  should  not  vote 
against  the  clause,  because  it  seemed  to  contain  the  li  ading 
principle  of  a  Bill,  originally  recommended  by  his  Ma- 
jesty, framed  by  his  Ministers  in  this  country,  approved 
by  the  other  House  of  Parliament,  and  generally  accorded 
to  as  the  sense  of  the  people  without  doors." 

The  question  was  put  and  carried  for  the  clause  against 
Lord  Enniskillen's  motion.     The  numbers  stood  : — 
For  the  clause         -        -         -         39 


A^rainst  it 

E 


6 


38 

No  impartial  or  honest  legislator,  who  may  be  informed 
of  these  facts,  can  any  longer  doubt  but  that  the  extension 
of  the  elective  franchise  to  all  classes  of  the  community 
was  distinctly  contemplated  and  intended  by  the  Parha- 
ment  that  restored  that   important  right  to   the   Irish 

Catholic  Body  in  1793.  ,    t    .  .,        ,     ,- 

It  is,  moreover,  to  be  considered  that  the  elective 
franchise  was  restored  to  the  Catholic  Body  eight  years 
prior  to  the  Legislative  Union  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland,  and  was  an  existing  right  enjoyed  by  the  people 
of  Ireland  at  the  period  of  the  enactment  of  that  conven- 
tion by  the  two  Parliaments,  and  that  it  was  not  then 
disturbed  or  altered,  or  questioned  ;  at  the  same^  time 
that  its  operation  at  elections,  and  its  enjoyment  by  the 
lower  orders,  as  well  as  of  Roman  Catholics  as  of  Protest- 
ants,  was  then  manifest  and  uncontrolled.  And  here  I  may 
observe,  that  the  lower  orders  of  Irish  Protestants  were  in 
the  habit  of  exercising  that  franchise  before  1/93,  in  the 
same  manner  as  it  has  been  exercised  by  them  and  the 
Roman  Catholics  since  that  time  ;  and  that  in  tact,  the 
only  effect  of  the  Bill  of  1793  was  to  place  the  Catholics 
upon  the  same  footing  with  the  Protestants,  and,  by  no 
means,  to  alter  the  nature  of  the  franchise,  or  to  extend 
it  to  any  other  species  or  amount  of  property  than  that  to 
which  it  was  extended  prior  to  1793,  and  which  never  was 
objected  to,  so  long  as  it  was  enjoyed  by  Protestants, 

pvclusivelv 
i  '  Now,  as  the  Act  of  Union  deprived  Ireland  of  two- 
thirds  of  its  representative  rights,  by  reducing  its  Mem- 
hers  from  300  to  100,  at  the  same  time  that  the  number  ot 
Eno-lish  Representatives  was  upheld  without  any  reduc- 
tion,  nothing  could  be  a  more  flagrant  violation  ol 
honest  or  decency  than,  after  such  a  conventional  set- 
tlement, under  which  Ireland  made  such  heavy  sacri- 
fices, to  require  from  her,  at  this  day,  a  reduction  or 
abandonment  of  her  elective  rights  also.  Common 
honesty  would,  on  the  contrary,  suggest  that  the  right  ot 
election  should  rather  be  extended,  as  some  compensa- 
tion for  such  a  reduction  of  the  right  of  represen  ation  ; 
and  I  have,  therefore,  not  the  slightest  hesitation  in 
insistino-,  that  anv  alteration  in  the  election  system  that 


».ri 


i 


39 

would  operate  a  diminution  of  the  elective  rights,  as  at 
present  possessed  by  the  forty-shilling  freeholders  of 
Ireland,  would  be  an  unwarrantable  infraction  of  the 
LegislativeUnion,  as  well  as  an  unconstitutional  spoliation 
of  public  rights,  and,  as  such,  open  to  the  farthest  extent 
of  popular  objection  and  opposition  that  the  spirit  of 
British  law  would  sanction  or  tolerate. 

The  exercise  of  this  right  must,  of  course,  be  subject  to 
the  incidents,  passions,  and  excitements  of  the  hour,  but 
its  existence  never  should  be  disturbed  or  questioned;  and, 
really,  when  we  bear  in  mind  that  the  great  body  of  the 
Irish  people  are  Catholics,  it  cannot  be  deemed  strange 
that  the  majority  of  the  electors  should  also  be  Catholics, 
and,  as  such,  feel  deeply  indignant  and  vilified,  when 
contemplating  their  condition  in  the  State,  produced,  in 
a  principal  degree,  by  the  misconduct  or  neglect  of  their 
nominal  Representatives  in  Parliament.  Ine  necessity 
and  the  good  results  of  the  active  attention  of  the  Catholic 
electors  to  their  own  elective  rights  cannot  be  better 
proved,  than  by  a  reference  to  the  fact,  that  when  the 
Catholic  claims  were  brought  before  the  Commons  of  the 
Imperial  Parliament  in  1^5,  forty-four  Irish  Represen- 
tatives voted  against  Emancipation,  and  only  twenty-nine 
in  favour  of  it ! ! 

Nothing  could  be  more  impolitic  than  the  revival  of  \\  ( 
any  attempt  to  disfranchise  the  40a\  freeholders  of  Ire-    U  \ 
land.     It  would  naturally  and  almost  necessarily  lead  to     ?   ^ 
further  investigations  of  the  legislative  system   of  this    | 
country.     Assuredly,  for  example,  if  the  exercise  of  the 
40^.  elective  franchise  be  questionable,  the  privilege  of 
the  Peer  to  vote  by  proxy  is  not  less  so.     The  freeholder 
may  be  one  of  five  or  ten  thousand  voters,  whose  united 
force  does  not  constitute  a  greater  legislative  power  than 
is  confided  to  a  single  Peer.     Nor  is  this  a  speculative 
evil  with  the  Irish  Catholic.  On  the  contrary,  the  repeated 
rejections  by  the  House  of  Lords,  of  measures  for  Catholic 
relief  passed  by  the  House  of  Commons,  and  the  refusal 
of  the  Lords,  in  the  last  Session,  to  accede  to  the  Resolu- 
tion of  the  Commons  in  favour  of  the  Catholics,  all  prove 
the  actual  injury  sustained  by  them,  and  that  such  injury 
is  inflicted  by  the  House  of  Peers.     This  injury  may  be 

£  2 


40 

inflicted  by  a  few  individuals,  or  even  one,  as  on  the  1st 
July,  1812,  who  never  heard  the  question  proposed  or 
discussed,  and,  of  course,  could  not  have  exercised  any 
judgment  or  reason  upon  it.  No  man  will  allege  that  the 
exercise  of  the  elective  franchise  in  Ireland  is  more  op- 
posed to  common  sense  or  common  decency  than  such  a 
practice,  or  stands  so  much  in  need  of  revision  and  amend- 
ment. Similar  observations  may  be  suggested  in  refe- 
rence to  other  practices  of  the  Legislative  Estates,  should 
the  exercise  of  the  40.^.  franchise  be  again  canvassed,  in 
an  affectedspiritof  Constitutional  jealousy;  and  who  can 
tell  where  such  an  inquiry  or  its  results  would  end  ? 

The  imputations  of  undiie  influence  cast  abroad  against 
the  Catholic  Clergy  of  Ireland,  may  be  disposed  of  by 
this  solitary  observation — that  those  who  have  been  most 
clamorous'in  making  the  charge,  have  uniformly  fouled 
in  proving,  or  even  attempting  to  prove  its  truth.  That 
the  Clergy  have  occasionally  advised  their  confiding 
flocks,  not  only  is  not  denied',  but  should  be  referred  to 
as  the  proudest  demonstration  of  their  virtue.  Their 
whole  advice  consisted  in  urging  a  preference  to  truth 
and  conscience  over  falsehood  and  deceit;  and  they 
would  have  been  base,  indeed,  had  they  shrunk  from  aid- 
ing, by  their  counsels,  that  honest  peasantry  which  has  so 
many  claims  upon  their  consideration. 

Moreover,  it  is  to  be  considered,  that  the  Catholic 
Clergymen  of  Ireland  did  not  interfere  with  the  political 
pretensions  of  the  landlords,  until  the  landlords  had  inter- 
fered with  the  religious  duties  of  the  Clergymen,  by 
endeavours  to  sow  dissensions  between  the  Catholic 
pastors  and  their  flocks,  and  for  that  purpose,  usin^  the 
influence  of  their  station,  and  the  supposed  dependence 
of  the  poor  people  upon  them,  to  enforce  a  system  of 
education  obnoxious  to  the  religious  principles  of  both 
pastors  and  people.  Any  person  who  will  take  the 
trouble  of  comparing  dates,  will  find  that  the  landlords, 
as  a  bodv,  were  the  aggressors ;  and  as  they  provoked 
hostility,'  let  them  endure  its  consequences. 

This  much  would  suffice  on  the  subject  of  clerical 
influence,  were  it  not  that  all  these  securities  are  in  part 
demanded  upon  the  same  false  pretences  of  a  necessity 


(V> 


41 

to  guard  against  such  influence.  For  my  own  part, 
viewing  the  condition  of  Ireland  and  all  its  distractions 
and  discontents,  I  consider  the  influence  of  the  Catholic 
Priesthood  a  great  national  blessing,  and  would  be  happy 
to  increase  and  extend  its  powers.  All  persons  admit 
that  the  o-eneral  conduct  of  the  people  committed  to 
their  pastoral  care,  indicates  the  possession  of  generous 
and  charitable  principles.  It  is  worse  than  absurd  to 
deny  that  they  must  be  in  some  degree  indebted  to  their 
relio-ious  teachers  for  such  dispositions,  particularly  when 
the°possession  of  such  influence  is  ascribed  to  those 
teachers.  The  desire  and  labour  unceasingly  engaged 
in  advancing  the  spiritual  and  temporal  interests  of  the 
people  necessarily  obtains  an  influence,  and  that  of  the 
best  kind  ;  and  the  experience  that  it  is  always  used  for 
the  benefit  of  the  giver,  insures  its  continuance. 

Those  who  allege,  that  the  influence  of  the  Catholic 
Clergy  of  Ireland  is  directed  against  the  Sovereign  or 
his  Government,  well  know  the  falsehood  of  their  own 
allegations;  and  the  cruelty  of  this  calumny  is  the  less 
pardonable,  when  it  is  notorious  that  no  portion  of  the 
King's  subjects  has  been  so  much  dreaded  and  detested 
as  tRe  same  Clergy  by  the  avowed  enemies  of  that  So- 
vereign and  Government.  Thus  we  find,  that  when  the 
invasfon  of  Ireland  was  contemplated  by  the  French 
Republic,  in  1796,  the  influence  of  the  Irish  Catholic 
Clergy   was   considered   the    greatest   obstacle   to   the 

success  of  the  invasion.  «-  i/. 

The  viewsof  the  French  Government,  and  of  Mr.  \V  olte 
Tone,  the  promoter  of  that  invasion,  as  to  the  political 
bias  of  the  Catholic  Clergy  of  Ireland,  may  be  collected 
from  his  journal  for  that  year,  from  which  I  beg  leave  to 
make  the  following  extracts  :— "  1  also  added  (said  Tone, 
in  his  account  of  an  interview  with  the  French  Minister 
De  la  Croix),  that  1  had  a  strong  objection  to  letting 
Priests  into  the  business  at  all ;  that  most  of  them  were 
enemies  to  the  French  Revolution  (March  II)."  "  He 
(General  Clarke)  then  came  to  the  influence  of  the 
Catholic  Clergy  over  the  minds  of  the  people,  and  the 
apprehension  that  they  might  warp  them  against  France 
(March  14)."     "  He  (General   Clarke)  dwelt  a  little  on 

E  o 


»» 


42 

the  nobles  and  clergy;  and  I  replied,  as  1  had  done  in  the 
former  conversation.      He    said  he    was  satisfied  that 
nothino-  was  to  be  expected  from  either  ;  and  I  answered, 
that  he  might  expect  all  the  opposition  they  could  give 
(March  21)."     "  Clarke   then,  after  some  civilities,   m 
reply,  asked  me  what  I  thought  of  some   of  the  Irish 
priests  yet  remaining  in  France?   I  answered,  that  he 
knew  my  opinion  as  to  priests  of  all  kinds  :  that  in  Ire- 
land  thev  had  acted  all  along  execrably;  that  they  hated 
the  very  name  of  the  French  Revolution  (March  2/). 
"  I  objected  all  along  to  priests,  as  the  worst  of  all  pos- 
sible agents  (April  3)."     "  Clarke  has  also  some  doub^ 
as  to  my  report  on  the  influence  of  the  Irish  priests,  which 
he  dreads  a  good  deal  (April  13)."     "  He  (Gen.  Hoche) 
then  asked  me,  what  I  thought  of  the  priests,  or  was  it 
likely  thev  would  give   us  any  trouble  ?     I  replied,  1 
certainly  did  not  calculate  on  their  assistance  (July  12)." 
Here  then  we  find  the  prime  mover   of  the  hostile 
invasion,   together   with   two   members  of  the    French 
Republican  Government,  and  the  invading  General,  all 
concurring   in  distrust  and   abhorrence   of  those   Irish 
Clergy,  against  whose  alleged  hostile  dispositions  towards 
the  State,  we  are  told,  all  these  Securities  are  necessary! ! 
The  Catholic  Priests  of  Ireland  have  been,  for  many 
years,  exposed  to   the  most  wanton   and   unwarranted 
vituperation  of  calumniators  of  all  orders.     Their  princi- 
ples and  conduct  have  been  misrepresented  in  and  out  of 
Parliament ;  and  it  is,  therefore,  not  to  be  wondered  at 
that  their   feelings   should  be  deeply  wounded.     But, 
notwithstanding  all  this  excitement  and  provocation,  they 
have  always  proved  to  be  the  best  promoters  of  public 
good,  and  the  best  preservers  of  public  order.     It  is, 
therefore,  the  grossest  injustice  to  allege,  that  any  mea- 
sures are  required  as  securities  against  men,  without 
whose  aid  the  peace  of  Ireland  could  not  be  preserved 
for  one  hour.     The  best  security  that  can  exist  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  peace  is  that  religion  whose  princi- 
ples they  inculcate,  and  by  whose  ordinances  they  have 
been  governed. 

Let  us  hear  no  more,  then,  of  these  false  and  odious 
pretences  of  the  necessity  for  Securities.  At  present  the 
Protestant   establishment  possesses  most   extraordinary 


43 

securities. — The  doctrines  of  self-interest,  the  power  of 
existing  laws,  the  vigilance  of  Government  and  Parlia- 
ment, and  the  obligations  of  solemn  oaths,  bind  the  Ca- 
tholic Laity  to  the  maintenance  of  the  Government;  and 
the  experience  of  the  past  conduct  of  the  Catholic  Pre- 
lates and  Clergy  should  prevent  any  declarations  of  dis- 
trust towards  them. 

Add  to  this,  that  the  Protestant  hierarchy  is  most 
abundantly  represented  by  the  Bishops  in  the  Upper 
House  of  Parliament,  while  the  second  order  of  Protestant 
Clergy  are  enabled  to  vote  for  Representatives  in  the 
Lower  House ;  and  in  both  Houses  of  Parliament  the 
friends  and  near  relatives  of  the  hierarchy  constitute 
majorities.  All  these  are  connected  with  the  Crown  by 
the  constitution  of  the  Established  Church,  which  gives 
to  the  Crown  the  appointment  of  all  the  Bishops,  and  to 
the  Lord  Chancellor — an  officer  removable  at  the  will  of 
the  Crown — the  appointment  to  all  the  Deaneries,  and 
more  than  one  thousand  livings  in  Great  Britain;  which 
is  a  larger  numerical  Church  patronage  than  is  possessed 
by  all  tlie  Bishops  of  England,  put  together;  the  livings 
in  their  gift  amounting  only  to  981,  being  precisely  the 
same  number,  to  the  single  unit,  and,  it  is  a  curious 
coincidence,  as  the  number  of  benefices  in  the  gift  of  the 
Catholic  Bishops  of  Ireland. 

To  those  who  are  only  anxious  to  possess  reasonable 
securities  for  the  Protestant  Institutions,  these  must 
appear  more  than  sufficient ;  but  those  who  wish,  by  the 
demand  of  securities,  to  perpetuate  the  present  system  in 
all  its  horrors,  never  can  be  satisfied,  ana  never  should  be 
consulted.  For  what  are  the  results  of  the  system  which 
they  desire  to  maintain?  We  find  them  consist  in  the 
vicious  administration  of  justice,  the  perversion  of  reli- 
gion, the  neglect  of  education,  the  neutralization  of 
natural  resources,  the  disorganization  of  society,  the  vili- 
fication of  national  fame,  the  maintenance  of  standing 
armies,  the  deficiency  of  the  revenue,  dissensions  in  the 
King's  Government,  and  collisions  between  the  two 
Mouses  of  Parliament. — Those  who  wish  for  the  conti- 
nuance of  such  a  system  are  well  justified  in  calling  aloud 
for  Securities,  to  ensure  its  permanency.  But  let  them 
beware ;  bad  as  these  evils  are,  there  may  yet  come  worse. 


44 

No  man  will  dare  to  prophecy  the  future  results,  though 
none  can  refuse  to  imagine  them.  Some  may  go  so  far 
as  to  think  it  possible  that  the  bloodless  conflict  may 
continue  ;  that  no  recruits  may  be  raised  from  Catholic 
Ireland  for  the  Armv  or  Navy  (and  what  would  England 
now  be  without  them?);  that  no  Catholic  youths woulu 
seek  instruction  in  the  Dublin  University ;  that  the  link-v 
of  society  may  be  severed,  and  rents,  tithes,  and  taxes 
be  erased  from  the  list  of  obligations. 

If  such  results  of  the  present  system  be  possible,  (and 
who  will  say  that  they  are  not  possible  ?)  can  any  rea- 
sonable or  loyal  man  *be  so  enamoured  of  it  as  to  require 
securities  for  its  continuance?  ,     •  , 

Let  us  not,  either,  be  threatened  with  "fearless  legisla- 
tion.'* The  Catholics  of  Ireland  know  well  how  to  meet 
this  fearless  legislation  ;  for  what  is  the  Penal  Code  itself 
but  legislation?  and  yet  it  yields  to  the  advances  of 
justice^and  of  public  opinion.  Let  justice  be  the  guide 
and  director  of  every  measure  of  relief  that  may  be  pro- 
posed or  approved.  Let  Catholic  feelings  be  well  con- 
sidered, and  this  doctrine  of  fearless  legislation  be  scouted 
from  the  Council  Chamber.  We  find  the  Government 
ready  to  communicate  with  any  body  of  manufacturers  or 
traders  on  questions  affecting  their  pursuits.  This  day 
we  read  of  intended  conferences  between  the  Home 
Secretary  and  the  citizens  of  London  upon  subjects 
affectino-'their  franchises,  such  as  the  warrants  of  Magis- 
trates.  °Then  why  should  not  the  Government  communi- 
cate with  the  Catholics  now  as  was  done  in  1 792  ?  Surely 
it  would  be  as  reasonable  to  consult  with  the  aggrieved 
party,  as  with  those  who  seek  to  continue  the  grievances. 

I  conclude  this  correspondence  with  the  repetition  of 
our  prayer,  that  the  great  settlement  may  be  founded  on 
principles  of  peace  and  charity,  and  mutual  confidence. 
This  can  be  effected  by  the  simple  repeal  of  the  laws  that 
a<ro-rieve  us,  and  that  repeal  will  prove  to  be  the  best 
support  of  the  Empire,  the  best  ally  of  the  Crown,  and 
the  best  security  of  the  Constitution. 

1  am,  &c. 

Eneas  Macdonnell. 


45 

Since  I  commenced  the  publication  of  these  letters,  the 
unaltered  and  unalterable  hostility  of  the  Catholics  of 
Ireland  to  these  and  similar  arrangements  or  condi- 
tions has  been  further  illustrated  by  their  distinct  and 
unequivocal  declarations. 

At  an  ao-o-reo-ate  meeting  of  the  Catholics  of  Ireland, 
held  in  the'city  of  Dublin,  on  Tuesday,  the  16th  Decem- 
ber last,  the  following  resolutions  were  unanimously 
adopted : 

Resolved— That  ardently  desirous,  as  we  are,  of  civil  liberty,  we  are, 
however,  infinitely  more  anxious  to  preserve  the  faith  of  our  fathers,  and 
our  own,  from  any  contamination  or  taint  whatsoever ;  and  we  therefore 
repudiate  and  reject  any  plan  of  emancipation  with,  or  in  anywise  including 
any  infringement  of,  or  intermeddling  with,  the  doctrines  or  discipline  of  our 
holy  religion. 

Resolved— That  whilst  we  give  our  undivided  allegiance  to  the  Sovereign 
and  the  State  in  all  matters  whatsoever  of  a  temporal  and  political  nature, 
we  equally  sever  from  the  State,  and  dedicate  to  God  all  matters  of  a  purely 
spiritual,  religious,  and  ecclesiastical  nature  ;  and  we  therefore  will  not  accept 
of  Emancipation  coupled  with  any  species  of  interference  with  the  tenets, 
doctrine,  or  discipline  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  Ireland. 

Resolved— That  we  equally  abhor  and  reject  any  State  provision  or 
payment  of  our  Clergy  by  the  Government,  and  we  deem  it  a  solemn  and 
sacred  duty  to  declare  emphatically  and  irrevocably,  that  we  infinitely  prefer 
remaining  in  our  present  state  of  unjust  degradation  and  oppression,  to 
obtaining  relief  accompanied  by  any  species  of  Government  provision  for  the 
Catholic  Clergy  of  Irelaad. 

Resolved— That  the  conduct  of  the  Forty-shilling  Freeholders  of  Ireland 
demands  our  most  enthusiastic  gratitude  and  respect,  and  that  we  deem  any 
attempt  to  deprive  them  of  their  franchises  a  direct  violation  of  the  Consti- 
tution; concurring  in  this  sentiment  with  two  of  our  bitterest  enemies,  the 
late  Earl  of  Liverpool  and  Mr.  Peel;  who,  on  a  former  occasion,  publicly 
declared,  «  that  any  person  consenting  to  such  disfranchisement  was  a  traitor 
to  the  Constitution ;  and  undeserving  of  participating  in  the  advantages  of 
that  Constitution." 

Resolved— That  we  would  prefer  a  perpetual  exclusion  from  our  remaining 
civil  rights,  to  any  Emancipation  coupled  with  any  limitation  or  dimiuutioa 
of  the  elective  franchise. 

Resolved— That  the  best  security  of  the  Government  is  to  be  found  in  the 
happiness  and  freedom  of  the  people,  and  that  we  are  ready  to  give,  in  return 
for  Emancipation,  the  security  of  our  interests,  our  allegiance,  and  our  oaths  j 


46 


but  we  are  bound  to  declare,  that  any  conditions  annexed  to  the  restoration 
of  our  rig-hls  would  be  only  an  increase  of  danger  to  the  State. 

In  addition  to  these  solemn  and  explicit  declarations, 
the  Catholic  Association  of  Ireland  thought  it  right,  at 
the  moment  of  its  dissolution,  on  the  12th  of  this  month, 
to  promulgate  the  feelings  of  the  body  upon  this  most 
important  subject,  in  the  following  emphatic  terms  : — 

That  any  Bill  of  Emancipation,  accompanied  with  an  encroachment  upon 
the  rights  of  the  Forty-shilling  Freeholders,  or  with  any  interference,  direct 
or  indirect,  on  the  part  of  the  Crown,  with  the  discipline  of  the  Catholic 
Church  in  Ireland,  wouldy  instead  of  giving  peace  to  this  diatradcd  country., 
only  produce  deep  and  general  discontent ^  and  rouse  every  manly  breast  to  the 
most  decided  opposition.  That  should  such  measures  be  introduced,  every 
parish  would  be  bound  instantly  to  as:emble,  to  denounce  in  the  strongest 
terms,  an  attack  upon  the  rights  of  men,  whose  constitutional  conduct  con- 
stitutes their  only  crime,  and  any  intermeddling  with  a  Priesthood,  who,  for 
virtue,  piety,  and  implicit  obedience  to  the  laws,  are  revered  throughout  the 
civilized  world. 


JFe^raflrj/ 23.  1829. 


«U.NNBLt.   AND   aHKARMA.V,    PRINTKRK,    lALISBUKT    SgVABA* 


